1982
DOI: 10.1016/0001-8686(82)80001-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The electrical properties and topochemistry of bacterial cells

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0
1

Year Published

1985
1985
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
1
31
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Changes in electrophoretic mobility have also been observed for other bacteria sampled at various growth stages and killed by formaldehyde (Douglas, 1957;James, 1982). The highest absolute electrophoretic mobility values in this study were measured for GS 24 h cultures, for which the electron micrographs showed few cells with intact cell walls.…”
Section: Electrophoretic Mobilitysupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Changes in electrophoretic mobility have also been observed for other bacteria sampled at various growth stages and killed by formaldehyde (Douglas, 1957;James, 1982). The highest absolute electrophoretic mobility values in this study were measured for GS 24 h cultures, for which the electron micrographs showed few cells with intact cell walls.…”
Section: Electrophoretic Mobilitysupporting
confidence: 71%
“…mitis strains, in combination with approximately equivalent IEPs and a N/C surface concentration ratio that is even higher than that for S. mitis, suggests that protein may have been masked in the semi-hydrated preparations used in contact angle measurements but not under the fully hydrated zeta potential conditions. Such a possible masking effect would be least likely to influence the XPS measurements because XPS probes more deeply (approximately 5 nm) than do the other techniques (zeta potentials probe at the plane of shear between the bacterial cell and the fluid (James, 1982); contact angles measure the outermost 0.4-0.5 nm of the semi-hydrated bacterial pellet (Bain & Whitesides, 1988)). …”
Section: Xpsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[14,15] When change the culture conditions of microbial cells like growth rate, medium composition, incubation temperature etc., the cell surface components such as the contents of protein, peptidoglycan (PEG), phospholipid and lipopolysaccharide would be influenced, [16] hence the variation of heavy metal binding site on cell surface. In addition, cell pre-treatment will also affect cell surface components and structural, [17,18] and certainly affect the adsorption capacity of bacterial cell to heavy metals. In our previous studies, a heavy metal binding bacterium Pseudomonas putida 5-x was isolated from electroplating effluent as biosorbent, and the characteristics of the cells for removing Cu 2+ and Ni 2+ , such as uptake kinetics, biosorption capacity and the effects of pH, cations and anions have been well documented.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%