Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 335

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reduction kinetics of Fe(III), Co(III), U(VI), Cr(VI), and Tc(VII) in cultures of dissimilatory metal‐reducing bacteria

Liu, Chongxuan, Gorby, Yuri A., Zachara, John M., Fredrickson, Jim K., Brown, Christopher F.·2002·Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Abstract

The reduction kinetics of Fe(III)citrate, Fe(III)NTA, Co(III)EDTA−, U(VI)O 22+, Cr(VI)O 42−, and Tc(VII)O 4− were studied in cultures of dissimilatory metal reducing bacteria (DMRB): Shewanella alga strain BrY, Shewanella putrefaciens strain CN32, Shewanella oneidensis strain MR‐1, and Geobacter metallireducens strain GS‐15. Reduction rates were metal specific with the following rate trend: Fe(III)citrate ≥ Fe(III)NTA > Co(III)EDTA− > UO 22+ > CrO 42− > TcO 4−, except for CrO 42− when H 2 was used as electron donor. The metal reduction rates were also electron donor dependent with faster rates observed for H 2 than lactate− for all Shewanella species despite higher initial lactate (10 m M) than H 2 (0.48 m M). The bioreduction of CrO 42− was anomalously slower compared to the other metals with H 2 as an electron donor relative to lactate and reduction ceased before all the CrO 42− had been reduced. Transmission electron microscopic (TEM) and energy‐dispersive spectroscopic (EDS) analyses performed on selected solids at experiment termination found precipitates of reduced U and Tc in association with the outer cell membrane and in the periplasm of the bacteria. The kinetic rates of metal reduction were correlated with the precipitation of reduced metal phases and their causal relationship discussed. The experimental rate data were well described by a Monod kinetic expression with respect to the electron acceptor for all metals except CrO 42−, for which the Monod model had to be modified to account for incomplete reduction. However, the Monod models became statistically over‐parametrized, resulting in large uncertainties of their parameters. A first‐order approximation to the Monod model also effectively described the experimental results, but the rate coefficients exhibited far less uncertainty. The more precise rate coefficients of the first‐order model provided a better means than the Monod parameters, to quantitatively compare the reduction rates between metals, electron donors, and DMRB species. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biotechnol Bioeng 80: 637–649, 2002.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bit.10430

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 335

Metadata

Authors
Liu, C., Gorby, Y. A., Zachara, J. M., Fredrickson, J. K., & Brown, C. F.
Venue
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-10-11
Volume
80
Issue
6
Pages
637-649
ISSN
  • 0006-3592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0290
OpenAlex
W1988088510
Cited by
335
References
1
FWCI
17.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reduction kinetics of Fe(III), Co(III), U(VI), Cr(VI), and Tc(VII) in cultures of dissimilatory metal‐reducing bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bit.10430
The paper
Liu, C., Gorby, Y. A., Zachara, J. M., Fredrickson, J. K., & Brown, C. F. (2002). Reduction kinetics of Fe(III), Co(III), U(VI), Cr(VI), and Tc(VII) in cultures of dissimilatory metal‐reducing bacteria. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.10430

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.