| Literature DB >> 35328836 |
Phakamani H Tsilo1, Albertus K Basson1, Zuzingcebo G Ntombela1, Tsolanku S Maliehe1, V S R Rajasekhar Pullabhotla2.
Abstract
A variety of flocculants have been used to aggregate colloidal substances. However, recently, owing to the adverse effects and high costs of conventional flocculants, natural flocculants such as microbial flocculants are gaining attention. The aim of the study was to produce and characterize a bioflocculant from Pichia kudriavzevii MH545928.1 and apply it in wastewater treatment. A mixture of butanol and chloroform (5:2 v/v) was used to extract the bioflocculant. Phenol-sulphuric acid, Bradford and Carbazole assays were utilized for the identification of carbohydrates, proteins and uronic acid, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and elemental detector were employed to determine the surface morphology and elemental compositions. The removal efficiencies were 73%, 49% and 47% for BOD, COD and P, respectively. The bioflocculant (2.836 g/L) obtained showed the presence of carbohydrates (69%), protein (11%) and uronic acid (16%). The bioflocculant displayed a cumulus-like structure and the elemental composition of C (16.92%), N (1.03%), O (43:76%), Na (0.18%), Mg (0.40%), Al (0.80%), P (14.44%), S (1.48%), Cl (0.31%), K (0.34%) and Ca (20.35). It showed the removal efficiencies of 43% (COD), 64% (BOD), 73% (P) and 50% (N) in coal mine wastewater. This bioflocculant is potentially viable to be used in wastewater treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Pichia kudriavzevii MH545928.1; bioflocculant; removal efficiency; wastewater
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328836 PMCID: PMC8953087 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Solubility of the purified bioflocculant.
| Solvents | Solubility |
|---|---|
| Water | + |
| Chloroform | − |
| Ethanol | − |
| Methanol | − |
| Butanol | − |
Keys: + denotes dissolve and − signify undissolved.
Chemical compositions of the purified bioflocculant.
| Samples | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
| Carbohydrates | 69 |
| Uronic acids | 16 |
| Proteins | 11 |
Figure 1Surface morphology of the bioflocculant.
Figure 2Elemental analysis of the bioflocculant.
Effect of dosage on flocculation.
| Dosage (mg/mL) | FA (%) ± SD |
|---|---|
| 0.2 | 54.03 ± 2.02 a |
| 0.4 | 80.01 ± 1.05 b |
| 0.6 | 59.00 ± 4.01 a |
| 0.8 | 51.21 ± 6.07 a |
| 1.0 | 28.04 ± 11.02 ab |
Different letters (a, b) denotes statistical significance at (p < 0.05).
Effect of cations on flocculation.
| Cations | FA (%) ± SD |
|---|---|
| Na | 54.61 ± 2.03 a |
| Li | 44.03 ± 11.31 a |
| K | 52.31 ± 7.20 a |
| Ba2+ | 35.00 ± 1.31 a |
| Mn2+ | 61.01 ± 21 ab |
| Fe3+ | 50.00 ± 1.10 a |
| Al3+ | 72.24 ± 0.35 ab |
| Control | 16.33 ± 5.35 c |
Different letters (a, b, c) denotes statistical significance at (p < 0.05).
Effect of AlCl3 concentrations on flocculation.
| AlCl3 (g/L) | FA (%) ± SD |
|---|---|
| 0.25 | 71.00 ± 1.25 a |
| 0.5 | 72.14 ± 3.43 a |
| 0.75 | 75.32 ± 6.20 a |
| 1.0 | 72.30 ± 0.04 a |
| 1.25 | 80.1 ± 3.05 ab |
| 1.5 | 61.22 ± 1.04 b |
Different letters (a, b) denotes statistical significance at (p < 0.05).
MIC values of the bioflocculant against the test bacteria.
| Bacterial Strains | Bioflocculant (mg/mL) | Ciprofloxacin (µg/mL) |
|---|---|---|
| 3.125 | 0.015 | |
| 1.563 | 0.015 |
The removal efficiency of the bioflocculant on domestic wastewater.
| Types of Flocculants | Removal Efficiency (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water Quality | BOD | COD | P | N | |
| Bioflocculant | Before treatment | 1.5 | 320 | 7 | 10 |
| After treatment | 0.4 | 162 | 4 | 5 | |
| Removal effeciency | 73 a | 49 b | 47 b | 50 b | |
| Alum | Before treatment | 1.5 | 320 | 7 | 10 |
| After treatment | 0.8 | 214 | 5 | 6 | |
| Removal efficiency | 47 b | 33 d | 29 d | 40 c | |
| FeCl3 | Before treatment | 1.5 | 320 | 10 | 10 |
| After treatment | 1.1 | 204 | 6 | 6 | |
| Removal efficiency | 27 d | 36 c | 46 b | 40 c | |
Different letters (a, b, c and d) denotes statistical significance at (p < 0.05).
The removal efficiency of the bioflocculant on coal mine wastewater.
| Types of Flocculants | Removal Efficiency (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water Quality | BOD | COD | P | N | |
| Bioflocculant | Before treatment | 4.2 | 435 | 8 | 8 |
| After treatment | 1.5 | 247 | 5 | 4 | |
| Removal effeciency | 64 a | 43 c | 38 c | 50 b | |
| Alum | Before treatment | 4.2 | 435 | 8 | 8 |
| After treatment | 2.7 | 249 | 3 | 4 | |
| Removal efficiency | 36 c | 40 c | 63 a | 50 b | |
| FeCl3 | Before treatment | 4.2 | 435 | 8 | 8 |
| After treatment | 1.8 | 205 | 4 | 5 | |
| Removal efficiency | 57 ab | 53 bc | 50 b | 38 c | |
Different letters (a, b, c) denotes statistical significance at (p < 0.05).
Dye removal efficiencies of the bioflocculant from P. kudriavzevii MH545928.1.
| Dyes | Bioflocculant FA (%) ± SD | FeCl3 FA (%) ± SD | Alum FA (%) ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Congo red | 81.03 ± 1.04 a | 72.23 ± 3.06 a | 81.05 ± 0.22 a |
| Nigrosine | 81.20 ± 0.13 a | 84.01 ± 1.44 a | 85.00 ± 3.23 a |
| Methylene blue | 73.41 ± 2.11 a | 65.09 ± 0.32 b | 87.21 ± 0.41 a |
| Safranin | 74.35 ± 3.05 a | 65.11 ± 0.45 b | 79.06 ± 1.05 a |
Different letters (a, b) denotes statistical significance at (p < 0.05).