Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 11985–11997 | Cite as

Comparative study on metal biosorption by two macroalgae in saline waters: single and ternary systems

  • Paula Figueira
  • Bruno Henriques
  • Ana Teixeira
  • Cláudia B. Lopes
  • Ana T. Reis
  • Rui J. R. Monteiro
  • A. C. Duarte
  • M. A. Pardal
  • E. Pereira
Research Article

Abstract

The biosorption capability of two marine macroalgae (green Ulva lactuca and brown Fucus vesiculosus) was evaluated in the removal of toxic metals (Hg, Cd and Pb) from saline waters, under realistic conditions. Results showed that, independently of the contamination scenario tested, both macroalgae have a remarkable capacity to biosorb Hg and Pb. In single-contaminant systems, by using only c.a. 500 mg of non-pre-treated algae biomass (size <200 μm) per litter, it was possible to achieve removal efficiencies between 96 and 99 % for Hg and up to 86 % for Pb. Despite the higher removal of Hg, equilibrium was reached more quickly for Pb (after 8 h). In multi-contaminant systems, macroalgae exhibited a similar selectivity toward the target metals: Hg > Pb> > Cd, although Pb removal by U. lactuca was more inhibited than that achieved by F. vesiculosus. Under the experimental conditions used, none of the macroalgae was effective to remove Cd (maximum removal of 20 %). In all cases, the kinetics of biosorption was mathematically described with success. Globally, it became clear that the studied macroalgae may be part of simple, efficient, and cost-effective water treatment technologies. Nevertheless, Fucus vesiculosus has greater potential, since it always presented higher initial sorption rates and higher removal efficiencies.

Keywords

Metal removal Algae Biosorption Kinetic modelling Ternary system Water treatment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank University of Aveiro, FCT/MEC for the financial support to CESAM, CICECO, and CIIMAR (UID/AMB/50017/2013, UID/CTM/50011/2013, UID/Multi/04423/2013) through national funds and, where applicable, co-financed by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement. We also would like to thank the National Funds through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through a FCT project (PTDC/MAR-BIO/3533/2012), postdoctoral grants to B. Henriques and C. B. Lopes (SFRH/BPD/112576/2015, SFRH/BPD/99453/2014), and a doctoral grant to R.J. Monteiro (SFRH/BD/108535/2015).

Supplementary material

11356_2016_6398_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.8 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1879 kb)

References

  1. Brady JM, Tobin JM (1995) Binding of hard and soft metal ions to Rhizopus arrhizus biomass. Enzym Microb Technol 17(9):791–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulgariu L and Bulgariu D (2014) Enhancing Biosorption Characteristics of Marine Green Algae (Ulva lactuca) for Heavy Metals Removal by Alkaline Treatment. Bioprocessing Biotechniques 4(1)Google Scholar
  3. Chojnacka K (2010) Biosorption and bioaccumulation—the prospects for practical applications. Environ Int 36(3):299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobas M, Sanromán MA, Pazos M (2014) Box–Behnken methodology for Cr (VI) and leather dyes removal by an eco-friendly biosorbent: F. vesiculosus. Bioresour Technol 160:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coelho JP, Pereira ME, Duarte A, Pardal MA (2005) Macroalgae response to a mercury contamination gradient in a temperate coastal lagoon (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 65(3):492–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges (Daughter to 2006/11/EC). Off J Eur Communities L291:1–8Google Scholar
  7. Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry. Off J Eur Communities L74:49–54Google Scholar
  8. Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. J Eur Communities L330:32–54Google Scholar
  9. Davis TA, Volesky B, Mucci A (2003) A review of the biochemistry of heavy metal biosorption by brown algae. Water Res 37(18):4311–4330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Decree-Law No. 103/2010 of the Portuguese Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of 24 September on pollution reduction. Diário da República : I Série L187:4289–4298Google Scholar
  11. Decree-Law No. 236/98 of the Portuguese Ministry of the Environment of 1 August establishing water quality standards. Diário da República : I Série L176:3676–3722Google Scholar
  12. Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Union L226:1–17Google Scholar
  13. Easton C, Turner A, Sewell G (2011) An evaluation of the toxicity and bioaccumulation of cisplatin in the marine environment using the macroalga, Ulva lactuca. Environ Pollut 159(12):3504–3508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EI-Sikaily A, El Nemr A, Khaled A, Abdelwehab O (2007) Removal of toxic chromium from wastewater using green alga Ulva lactuca and its activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 148(1-2):216–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El-Khaiary MI, Malash GF (2011) Common data analysis errors in batch adsorption studies. Hydrometallurgy 105(3-4):314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elrefaii AH, Sallam LA, Hamdy AA, Ahmed EF (2012) Optimization of some heavy metals biosorption by representative Egyptian marine algae. J Phycol 48(2):471–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farooq U, Kozinski JA, Khan MA, Athar M (2010) Biosorption of heavy metal ions using wheat based biosorbents—a review of the recent literature. Bioresour Technol 101(14):5043–5053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freitas OMM, Martins RJE, Delerue-Matos CM, Boaventura RAR (2008) Removal of Cd(II), Zn(II) and Pb(II) from aqueous solutions by brown marine macro algae: kinetic modelling. J Hazard Mater 153(1-2):493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henriques B, Rodrigues SM, Coelho C, Cruz N, Duarte AC, Römkens PFAM, Pereira E (2013) Risks associated with the transfer of toxic organo-metallic mercury from soils into the terrestrial feed chain. Environ Int 59:408–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henriques B, Rocha LS, Lopes CB, Figueira P, Monteiro RJR, Duarte AC, Pardal MA, Pereira E (2015) Study on bioaccumulation and biosorption of mercury by living marine macroalgae: prospecting for a new remediation biotechnology applied to saline waters. Chem Eng J 281:759–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho YS, Ng JCY, Mckay G (2000) Kinetics of pollutant sorption by biosorbents: review. Separ Purif Method 29(2):189–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lesmana SO, Febriana N, Soetaredjo FE, Sunarso J, Ismadji S (2009) Studies on potential applications of biomass for the separation of heavy metals from water and wastewater. Biochem Eng J 44(1):19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lo Y-C, Cheng C-L, Han Y-L, Chen B-Y, Chang J-S (2014) Recovery of high-value metals from geothermal sites by biosorption and bioaccumulation. Bioresour Technol 160:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopes CB, Oliveira JR, Rocha LS, Tavares DS, Silva CM, Silva SP, Hartog N, Duarte AC, Pereira E (2014) Cork stoppers as an effective sorbent for water treatment: the removal of mercury at environmentally relevant concentrations and conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 21(3):2108–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mata YN, Blázquez ML, Ballester A, González F, Muñoz JA (2008) Characterization of the biosorption of cadmium, lead and copper with the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. J Hazard Mater 158(2-3):316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mata YN, Blázquez ML, Ballester A, González F, Muñoz JA (2009) Biosorption of cadmium, lead and copper with calcium alginate xerogels and immobilized Fucus vesiculosus. J Hazard Mater 163(2-3):555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monterroso P, Abreu SN, Pereira E, Vale C, Duarte AC (2003) Estimation of Cu, Cd and Hg transported by plankton from a contaminated area (Ria de Aveiro). Acta Oecol 24(1):S351–S357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nikolaisen LS and Jensen PD (2013) 3 - Biomass feedstocks: categorisation and preparation for combustion and gasification. Biomass Combustion Science, Technology and Engineering. L. Rosendahl, Woodhead Publishing: 36–57Google Scholar
  29. Pagnanelli F, Esposito A, Veglio F (2002) Multi-metallic modelling for biosorption of binary systems. Water Res 36(16):4095–4105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park D, Yun Y-S, Park J (2010) The past, present, and future trends of biosorption. Biotechnol Bioproc E 15(1):86–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pato P, Otero M, Válega M, Lopes CB, Pereira ME, Duarte AC (2010) Mercury partition in the interface between a contaminated lagoon and the ocean: the role of particulate load and composition. Mar Pollut Bull 60(10):1658–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rocha L, Lopes C, Borges JA, Duarte AC, Pereira E (2013) Valuation of unmodified rice husk waste as an eco-friendly sorbent to remove mercury: a study using environmental realistic concentrations. Water Air Soil Pollut 224(7):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romera E, Gonzalez F, Ballester A, Blazquez ML, Munoz JA (2006) Biosorption with algae: a statistical review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 26(4):223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Romera E, Gonzalez F, Ballester A, Blazquez ML, Munoz JA (2007) Comparative study of biosorption of heavy metals using different types of algae. Bioresour Technol 98(17):3344–3353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sari A, Tuzen M (2008) Biosorption of Pb(II) and Cd(II) from aqueous solution using green alga (Ulva lactuca) biomass. J Hazard Mater 152(1):302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Torres MA, Barros MP, Campos SCG, Pinto E, Rajamani S, Sayre RT, Colepicolo P (2008) Biochemical biomarkers in algae and marine pollution: a review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 71(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trinelli MA, Areco MM, Afonso MD (2013) Co-biosorption of copper and glyphosate by Ulva lactuca. Colloid Surf B 105:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vijayaraghavan K, Joshi UM (2012) Interaction of mercuric ions with different marine algal species. Biorem J 16(4):225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeroual Y, Moutaouakkil A, Zohra Dzairi F, Talbi M, Ung Chung P, Lee K, Blaghen M (2003) Biosorption of mercury from aqueous solution by Ulva lactuca biomass. Bioresour Technol 90(3):349–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Figueira
    • 1
  • Bruno Henriques
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ana Teixeira
    • 1
  • Cláudia B. Lopes
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ana T. Reis
    • 1
  • Rui J. R. Monteiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. C. Duarte
    • 1
  • M. A. Pardal
    • 4
  • E. Pereira
    • 1
  1. 1.CESAM and Department of ChemistryUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.CIIMAR, Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and EnvironmentalPortoPortugal
  3. 3.CICECO and Department of ChemistryUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  4. 4.CEF and Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations