The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biosorption of uranium and thorium
Abstract
Selected samples of waste microbial biomass originating from various industrial fermentation processes and biological treatment plants have been screened for biosorbent properties in conjunction with uranium and thorium in aqueous solutions. Biosorption isotherms have been used for the evaluation of biosorptive uptake capacity of the biomass which was also compared to an activated carbon and the ion exchange resin currently used in uranium production processes. Determined uranium and thorium biosorption isotherms were independent of the initial U or Th solution concentration. Solution pH affected the exhibited uptake. In general, lower biosorptive uptake was exhibited at pH 2 than at pH 4. No discernible difference in uptake was observed between pH 4 and pH 5 where the optimum pH for biosorption lies. The biomass of Rhizopus arrhizus at pH 4 exhibited the highest uranium and thorium biosorptive uptake capacity (g) in excess of 180 mg/g. At an equilibrium uranium concentration of 30 mg/liter, R. arrhizus removed approximately 2.5 and 3.3 times more uranium than the ion exchange resin and activated carbon, respectively. Under the same conditions, R. arrhizus removed 20 times more thorium than the ion exchange resin and 2.3 times more than the activated carbon. R. arrhizus also exhibited higher uptake and a generally more favorable isotherm for both uranium and thorium than all other biomass types examined.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Spectrophotometric determination of elements
Steyermark, A. (1977) · Microchemical Journal · doi:10.1016/0026-265x(77)90041-8 · Cited by 775
Cation-dependent Flocculation in a Flavobacterium Species Predominant in Activated Sludge
Tezuka, Y. (1969) · Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1128/am.17.2.222-226.1969 · Cited by 102
Analytical Chemistry of Uranium
Palei, P. N. (1970) · Cited by 92
The response of cell walls of Bacillus subtilis to metals and to electron-microscopic stains
Beveridge, T. J. (1978) · Canadian Journal of Microbiology · doi:10.1139/m78-018 · Cited by 78
ORGANIC MACROMOLECULAR BINDERS OF METAL IONS
Tanaka, Y., & Skoryna, S. C. (1971) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-015721-4.50011-2 · Cited by 6
Cited by
Volesky, B., & Holan, Z. R. (1995) · Biotechnology Progress · doi:10.1021/bp00033a001 · Cited by 3,326
Self-citationMicrobial and plant derived biomass for removal of heavy metals from wastewater
Ahluwalia, S. S., & Goyal, D. (2007) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.12.006 · Cited by 1,586
Gadd, G. M. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology · doi:10.1002/jctb.1999 · Cited by 1,287
Heavy metal accumulation by bacteria and other microorganisms
Gadd, G. M. (1990) · Experientia · doi:10.1007/bf01935534 · Cited by 503
Biosorption of heavy metals by Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Volesky, B., & May-Phillips, H. A. (1995) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/bf00171964 · Cited by 384
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsezos, M., & Volesky, B.
- Venue
- Biotechnology and Bioengineering
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1981-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 583-604
- ISSN
- 0006-3592 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0290
- OpenAlex
- W2162108325
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.15
- 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: Biosorption of uranium and thorium. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bit.260230309
- The paper
- Tsezos, M., & Volesky, B. (1981). Biosorption of uranium and thorium. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260230309
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.