| Literature DB >> 29138995 |
Prachi Chaudhary1, Vinod Chhokar2, Pragati Choudhary2, Anil Kumar2, Vikas Beniwal3.
Abstract
A chromium and tannic acid resistance fungal strain was isolated from tannery effluent, and identified as Aspergillus niveus MCC 1318 based on its rDNA gene sequence. The MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) of the isolate against chromium and tannic acid was found to be 200 ppm and 5% respectively. Optimization of physiochemical parameters for biosorption of chromium and tannic acid degradation was carried out by Plackett-Burman design followed by response surface methodology (RSM). The maximum chromium removal and tannic acid degradation was found to be 92 and 68% respectively by A. niveus. Chromium removal and tannic acid degradation was increased up to 11 and 6% respectively after optimization. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was used to investigate biosorption phenomena.Entities:
Keywords: A. niveus; Chromium; Plackett–Burman; RSM; Tannery effluent; Tannic acid
Year: 2017 PMID: 29138995 PMCID: PMC5686038 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-017-0504-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Plackett Burman experimental design matrix of eleven variables
| Run | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | % Cr removal | % residual TA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 30 | 96 | 110 | 3 | 100 | 2.75 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 90.75 | 54.06 |
| 2 | 7 | 20 | 144 | 180 | 1 | 150 | 5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 74.83 | 74.73 |
| 3 | 3 | 40 | 144 | 40 | 5 | 150 | 5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 91.44 | 92.03 |
| 4 | 3 | 40 | 144 | 180 | 1 | 50 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 59.32 | 12.49 |
| 5 | 3 | 20 | 48 | 180 | 1 | 150 | 5 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 88.71 | 92.05 |
| 6 | 7 | 40 | 48 | 40 | 1 | 150 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 99.57 | 70.8 |
| 7 | 7 | 20 | 144 | 180 | 5 | 50 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 97.63 | 27.24 |
| 8 | 7 | 40 | 144 | 40 | 1 | 50 | 5 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 97.21 | 74.73 |
| 9 | 3 | 40 | 48 | 180 | 5 | 50 | 5 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 72.31 | 74.73 |
| 10 | 3 | 20 | 144 | 40 | 5 | 150 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 94.15 | 55.95 |
| 11 | 3 | 20 | 48 | 40 | 1 | 50 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 87.11 | 40.41 |
| 12 | 7 | 20 | 48 | 40 | 5 | 50 | 5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 60.16 | 74.73 |
| 13 | 7 | 40 | 48 | 180 | 5 | 150 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 99.99 | 90.22 |
Screening of critical factors for A. niveus
| Chromium | Tannic acid | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Stdized effect | % contribution | Coefficient estimate | P value | Stdized effect | % contribution | Coefficient estimate | P value |
| pH | 6.06 | 4.53 | 3.03 | 0.0089 | 7.47 | 2.23 | 3.73 | 0.4348 |
| Temperature | 2.88 | 1.02 | 1.44 | 0.0187 | 8.32 | 2.77 | 4.16 | 0.4016 |
| Incubation period | 1.12 | 0.16 | 0.56 | 0.0479 | − 17.63 | 12.45 | − 8.81 | 0.2112 |
| Agitation speed | − 6.14 | 4.66 | − 3.07 | 0.0088 | − 6.20 | 1.54 | − 3.10 | 0.4935 |
| Inoculum size | 1.49 | 0.27 | 0.74 | 0.0361 | 8.28 | 2.75 | 4.14 | 0.4028 |
| Cr concentration | 12.49 | 19.27 | 6.25 | 0.0043 | 28.58 | 32.70 | 14.29 | 0.0333 |
| TA concentration | 8.85 | 9.68 | 4.43 | 0.0061 | 30.98 | 38.44 | 15.49 | 0.0232 |
| Glucose | 16.96 | 35.51 | 8.48 | 0.0032 | 8.87 | 13.15 | 4.44 | 0.0421 |
| NH4Cl | 12.79 | 20.19 | 6.39 | 0.0042 | 1.82 | 0.13 | 0.91 | 0.0151 |
| MgSO4 | 3.89 | 1.87 | 1.95 | 0.0138 | 3.37 | 0.46 | 1.69 | 0.6774 |
| K2HPO4 | 4.80 | 2.84 | 2.40 | 0.0112 | 6.91 | 1.91 | 3.45 | 0.4593 |
Box–Behnken experimental design of A. niveus
| Run | A: glucose g/L | B: tannic acid % | C: metal dose ppm | D: NH4Cl g/L | Cr removal % | Residual TA % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A* value | P* value | A* value | P* value | |||||
| 1 | 0 | + 1 | − 1 | 0 | 80.97 | 82.39 | 49.03 | 49.10 |
| 2 | 0 | + 1 | 0 | + 1 | 86.11 | 85.54 | 49 | 48.94 |
| 3 | − 1 | − 1 | 0 | 0 | 89.42 | 90.50 | 4.38 | 4.38 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | +1 | − 1 | 89.98 | 90.13 | 26.32 | 26.37 |
| 5 | +1 | 0 | 0 | + 1 | 84.21 | 84.50 | 26.29 | 26.28 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 89.84 | 88.66 | 26.3 | 26.26 |
| 7 | + 1 | 0 | − 1 | 0 | 83.66 | 83.55 | 26.33 | 26.31 |
| 8 | − 1 | 0 | − 1 | 0 | 83.81 | 82.91 | 26.59 | 26.55 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | − 1 | + 1 | 83.26 | 83.21 | 26.47 | 26.45 |
| 10 | + 1 | 0 | 0 | − 1 | – | – | ||
| 11 | + 1 | + 1 | 0 | 0 | 89.54 | 88.57 | 48.84 | 48.88 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90.61 | 88.66 | 26.26 | 26.26 |
| 13 | 0 | 0–1 | 0 | + 1 | 88.85 | 89.25 | 4.47 | 4.39 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | + 1 | + 1 | 85.67 | 85.06 | 26.27 | 26.37 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 85.76 | 88.66 | 26.3 | 26.26 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | − 1 | − 1 | 78.12 | 78.82 | 26.54 | 26.48 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 89.14 | 88.66 | 26.28 | 26.26 |
| 18 | + 1 | − 1 | 0 | 0 | 90.62 | 91.16 | 4.29 | 4.34 |
| 19 | + 1 | 0 | + 1 | 0 | 89.40 | 89.67 | 26.45 | 26.39 |
| 20 | − 1 | 0 | 0 | + 1 | 88.13 | 88.69 | 26.4 | 26.47 |
| 21 | 0 | + 1 | 0 | − 1 | 88.51 | 87.48 | 48.98 | 48.96 |
| 22 | 0 | − 1 | − 1 | 0 | 86.73 | 85.68 | 4.26 | 4.34 |
| 23 | 0 | − 1 | +1 | 0 | 91.94 | 91.08 | 4.45 | 4.45 |
| 24 | − 1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 90.48 | 89.95 | 26.34 | 26.26 |
| 25 | − 1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 89.31 | 88.88 | 48.97 | 48.95 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 87.91 | 88.66 | 26.17 | 26.26 |
| 27 | − 1 | 0 | 0 | − 1 | 84.38 | 84.66 | 26.28 | 26.35 |
| 28 | 00 | − 1 | 0 | − 1 | 88.06 | 87.99 | 4.45 | 4.41 |
| 29 | 00 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 88.54 | 90.15 | 48.81 | 48.80 |
A* value actual value, P* value predicted value
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of A. niveus for the fitted quadratic polynomial model for residual tannic acid and chromium
| Response variable | Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square | F value | P value prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tannic acid | Model | 5956.30 | 14 | 425.45 | 72757.21 | < 0.0001a |
| Lack of fit | 0.064 | 9 | 7.149E−003 | 2.45 | 0.2016b | |
| Pure error | 0.012 | 4 | 2.920E−003 | |||
| Cor total | 5956.38 | 27 | ||||
| Chromium | Model | 259.18 | 14 | 18.51 | 8.73 | < 0.0002a |
| Lack of fit | 13.13 | 9 | 1.46 | 0.40 | 0.8804b | |
| Pure error | 14.42 | 4 | 3.60 | |||
| Cor total | 286.73 | 27 |
aSignificant
bNon significant
Statistical significance of residual tannic acid and chromium
| Model terms | Chromium | Tannic acid |
|---|---|---|
| Std. dev. | 1.46 | 0.076 |
| Mean | 87.25 | 26.48 |
| %CV | 1.67 | 0.29 |
| PRESS | 107.81 | 0.46 |
| R-squared | 0.9039 | 1.00 |
| Adj R-squared | 0.8004 | 1.00 |
| Pred R-squared | 0.6240 | 0.9999 |
| Adeq precision | 11.580 | 799.719 |
Fig. 1Normal plot of studentized residuals verses normal % probability of A. niveus for bearing the experiment for a Cr(VI) and b residual tannic acid
Fig. 2Overlay plot of perturbation of A. niveus for a Cr(VI) and b Residual tannic acid. A—glucose, B—tannic acid, C—metal dose and D—NH4Cl
Fig. 3Three dimensional plots of A. niveus. a Three-dimensional plot of residual Cr(VI) as a function of metal dose and glucose at constant tannic acid (2.75%) and NH4Cl (1 g/L). b Three-dimensional plot of residual Cr(VI) as a function of metal dose and tannic acid at constant glucose (0.5 g/L) and NH4Cl (1 g/L). c Three-dimensional plot of residual Cr(VI) as a function of NH4Cl and metal dose at constant glucose (0.5 g/L) and tannic acid (2.75%)
Fig. 4Three-dimensional plot of residual tannic acid as a function of tannic acid and glucose at constant NH4Cl (1.0 g/L) and metal dose (125 ppm)