2005
DOI: 10.1080/02757540512331334933
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biosorption of copper, zinc, cadmium and nickel byChlorella vulgaris

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
38
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
3
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The assessments were determined on seven days interval from 1 st day to 28 th day. Heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Fe, Ni and Cr) were assessed at different time intervals using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (1983-400 HGA 900/AS 800 Perkin Elmer) and multi-Element Standard (MERCK-112837) (Fraile et al, 2005).…”
Section: Analysis Of Physio-chemical Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assessments were determined on seven days interval from 1 st day to 28 th day. Heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Fe, Ni and Cr) were assessed at different time intervals using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (1983-400 HGA 900/AS 800 Perkin Elmer) and multi-Element Standard (MERCK-112837) (Fraile et al, 2005).…”
Section: Analysis Of Physio-chemical Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Metal ions can accordingly be grouped into class ''a'', ''b'' or borderline ions, on the basis of their covalent indices; both metals used in our study are borderline ions, and Tsezos et al (1996) claimed that ionic competition is greater (and thus more unfavourable) between metals belonging to the same class. Studies reported by Fraile et al (2005) encompassing the simultaneous removal of Zn 2? and Cd 2?…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The environmental injuries brought about by such effluents have received major attention by national and international authorities, and consequently led to directives and regulations aimed at minimizing their impact. In attempts to remove (or, at least, reduce the concentration of) those toxic metals, distinct types of microbial biomass have been scrutinized as alternatives to conventional physicochemical technologies (Aksu and Dönmez 2006;Puranik and Paknikar 1999;Sag et al 2000;Vilar et al 2008); the latter are in fact characterized by a limited effectiveness, and are typically too expensive when the target metal concentration is at the ppm level or below (Fraile et al 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been claimed that increasing biomass reduces the intrinsic metal removal capacity, because the solute becomes less available, and unfavourable interference between binding sites and electrostatic interactions is enhanced (Fourest and Roux 1992). Other studies (Ahuja et al 1999;Fraile et al 2005) have indeed indicated that electrostatic interactions between cells play an important role in this type of process, and that the shell effect on the external layer at high cell densities constrains the availability of active sites themselves.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%