| Literature DB >> 23724315 |
C K Venil1, V Mohan, P Lakshmanaperumalsamy, M B Yerima.
Abstract
An indigenous bacterium, Bacillus REP02, was isolated from locally sourced chromium electroplating industrial effluents. Response surface methodology was employed to optimize the five critical medium parameters responsible for higher % Cr(2+) removal by the bacterium Bacillus REP02. A three-level Box-Behnken factorial design was used to optimize K2HPO4, yeast extract, MgSO4, NH4NO3, and dextrose for Cr(2+) removal. A coefficient of determination (R (2)) value (0.93), model F-value (3.92) and its low P-value (F < 0.0008) along with lower value of coefficient of variation (5.39) indicated the fitness of response surface quadratic model during the present study. At optimum parameters of K2HPO4 (0.6 g L(-1)), yeast extract (5.5 g L(-1)), MgSO4 (0.04 g L(-1)), NH4NO3 (0.20 g L(-1)), and dextrose (12.50 g L(-1)), the model predicted 98.86% Cr(2+) removal, and experimentally, 99.08% Cr(2+) removal was found.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 23724315 PMCID: PMC3658643 DOI: 10.5402/2011/951694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Microbiol
Independent variables and their levels in the experimental design.
| Independent variables (g L−1) | Symbols | −1 Level | +1 Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| K2HPO4 | A | 0.2 | 1 |
| Yeast extract | B | 1 | 10 |
| MgSO4 | C | 0.04 | 0.4 |
| NH4NO3 | D | 0.2 | 1 |
| Dextrose | E | 5 | 20 |
Experimental design and results of the Box-Behnken design.
| Run |
|
|
|
|
| Chromium % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g L−1) | (g L−1) | (g L−1) | (g L−1) | (g L−1) | Experimental | Predicted | |
| 1 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 5 | 65.85 | 65.43 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 20 | 87.08 | 81.58 |
| 3 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 20 | 66.55 | 65.15 |
| 4 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 1 | 5 | 34.97 | 35.00 |
| 5 | 0.6 | 10 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 12.5 | 85.75 | 86.09 |
| 6 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 56.97 | 68.53 |
| 7 | 0.6 | 10 | 0.22 | 1 | 12.5 | 48.97 | 49.32 |
| 8 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 1 | 20 | 69.76 | 68.55 |
| 9 | 1 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 54.85 | 54.82 |
| 10 | 1 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 5 | 37.09 | 40.32 |
| 11 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 1 | 12.5 | 67.98 | 64.17 |
| 12 | 0.6 | 10 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 65.97 | 64.03 |
| 13 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 58.66 | 58.77 |
| 14 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 85.08 | 79.48 |
| 15 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 20 | 57.87 | 59.09 |
| 16 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.04 | 1 | 12.5 | 68.98 | 67.81 |
| 17 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 87.98 | 89.03 |
| 18 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 5 | 54.09 | 59.51 |
| 19 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 76.98 | 78.71 |
| 20 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 65.54 | 65.90 |
| 21 | 0.6 | 10 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 5 | 45.96 | 46.53 |
| 22 | 0.2 | 10 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 65.86 | 68.27 |
| 23 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 12.5 | 78.76 | 75.65 |
| 24 | 1 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 37.98 | 34.13 |
| 25 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.04 | 0.2 | 12.5 | 98.86 | 99.08 |
| 26 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 56.98 | 60.01 |
| 27 | 1 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 20 | 50.05 | 55.84 |
| 28 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 20 | 88.76 | 79.07 |
| 29 | 1 | 10 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 51.53 | 49.74 |
| 30 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.22 | 1 | 12.5 | 74.65 | 77.26 |
| 31 | 1 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 12.5 | 69.43 | 71.60 |
| 32 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 76.38 | 72.96 |
| 33 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 5 | 64.31 | 57.20 |
| 34 | 1 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 1 | 12.5 | 53.86 | 49.12 |
| 35 | 1 | 5.5 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 74.93 | 81.97 |
| 36 | 0.6 | 10 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 20 | 38.85 | 37.75 |
| 37 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 1 | 12.5 | 81.64 | 73.45 |
| 38 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 5 | 83.75 | 79.58 |
| 39 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 12.5 | 63.76 | 66.86 |
| 40 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 79.05 | 82.77 |
| 41 | 0.6 | 10 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 63.67 | 67.21 |
| 42 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 83.61 | 83.60 |
| 43 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 20 | 65.54 | 62.33 |
| 44 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 12.5 | 58.65 | 58.25 |
| 45 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 85.38 | 82.77 |
| 46 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 5 | 46.86 | 48.76 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA), regression coefficient estimate and test of significance for Cr2+ removal (response surface quadratic model).
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 8067.895 | 20 | 403.39 | 3.92 | 0.0008 |
|
| 918.2415 | 1 | 918.24 | 8.93 | 0.0062 |
|
| 4.070306 | 1 | 4.07 | 0.04 | 0.8439 |
|
| 306.075 | 1 | 306.08 | 2.98 | 0.0969 |
|
| 633.7806 | 1 | 633.78 | 6.16 | 0.0201 |
|
| 534.5344 | 1 | 534.53 | 5.20 | 0.0314 |
|
| 43.75823 | 1 | 43.76 | 0.43 | 0.5202 |
|
| 0.0016 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.9969 |
|
| 97.91103 | 1 | 97.91 | 0.95 | 0.3386 |
|
| 21.02223 | 1 | 21.02 | 0.20 | 0.6551 |
|
| 0.093025 | 1 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.9762 |
|
| 696.4321 | 1 | 696.43 | 6.77 | 0.0154 |
|
| 0.112225 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.9739 |
|
| 206.7844 | 1 | 206.78 | 2.01 | 0.1686 |
|
| 63.92003 | 1 | 63.92 | 0.62 | 0.4380 |
|
| 675.74 | 1 | 675.74 | 6.57 | 0.0168 |
|
| 1360.048 | 1 | 1360.05 | 13.22 | 0.0013 |
|
| 2170.927 | 1 | 2170.93 | 21.10 | 0.0001 |
|
| 106.6674 | 1 | 106.67 | 1.04 | 0.3183 |
|
| 47.96591 | 1 | 47.97 | 0.47 | 0.5010 |
|
| 1797.403 | 1 | 1797.40 | 17.47 | 0.0003 |
| Residual | 2571.918 | 25 | 102.88 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 2485.731 | 20 | 124.29 | 7.21 | 0.0188 |
| Pure Error | 86.18655 | 5 | 17.24 | ||
| Cor Total | 10639.81 | 45 |
R: 0.93; Adj R: 0.8649; Pred R: 0.0538; CV: 5.3.
Figure 1The internally studentized residuals and normal % probability plot of Cr2+ removal by Bacillus spp. REP02.
Figure 2Contour surface plot for the removal of chromium by Bacillus spp. REP02—A function of K2HPO4 and yeast extract. Contour surface plot for the removal of chromium by Bacillus spp. REP02—A function of K2HPO4 and MgSO4. Contour surface plot for the removal of chromium by Bacillus spp. REP02—A function of K2HPO4 and dextrose. Contour surface plot for the removal of chromium by Bacillus spp. REP02—A function of yeast extract and MgSO4. Contour surface plot for the removal of chromium by Bacillus spp. REP02—A function of yeast extract and dextrose. Contour surface plot for the removal of chromium by Bacillus spp. REP02—A function of MgSO4 and dextrose.
Figure 3Perturbation graph showing the optimum values of the medium components.