CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Biotransformation of phosphogypsum in wastewaters from the dairy industry

Wolicka, Dorota·2008·Bioresource Technology
DOI 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.029
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The biotransformation of phosphogypsum by stationary cultures of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) in dairy wastewaters (sterile and non-sterile) enriched in phosphogypsum, was studied SRB were isolated from soil contaminated with petroleum-derived products and from wastewaters from the petroleum-refining industry, taking into account that these environments are characteristic for the bacteria of the studied group. The biotransformation products formed were investigated using biological and mineralogical methods. Sulphides in the cultures were determined using the iodometric method, sulphates with the hot barium method, COD by the dichromate method. Determinations involving post-culture sediments and fluids, Ca, S, Sr and P were made using the following analytical procedures: IPC emission spectrometry with induced excitation in the medium and X-ray. Analysis of post-culture sediments was made using a DRON-2 X-ray diffractometer. Eleven communities of microorganisms with varying degrees of effectiveness were obtained, biodegrading 58% to 98% of the organic contaminants in non-sterile wastewater, with simultaneous biotransformation of about 2.5 g phosphogypsum/L.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.029

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Alvarez-Manteos, 2000, Influence of inoculum and pH on dairy effluent biodegradation and mineralization, Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q, 14, 101
  2. Azabou, 2005, Sulfate reduction from phosphogypsum using a mixed culture of sulfate reducing bacteria, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad., 56, 236, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2005.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Azabou, 2007, Zinc precipitation by heavy-metal tolerant sulfate reducing bacteria enriched on phosphogypsum as a sulfate source, Min. Eng., 20, 173, 10.1016/j.mineng.2006.08.008 · DOI
  4. Azabou, 2007, Isolation and characterization of amesophilic heavy-metals-tolerant sulfate reducing bacterium Desulfomicrobium sp. from an enrichment culture using phosphogypsum as a sulfate source, J. Haz. Mater., 140, 264, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.07.073 · DOI
  5. Baena, 2000, Aminobacteriummobile sp. November, a new anaerobic amino-acid-degrading bacterium, Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 1, 259, 10.1099/00207713-50-1-259 · DOI
  6. Brock, T.D., Madigan, M.T., 2006. Biology of microorganisms. Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Chapter 16, pp. 562–608.
  7. Carrasco, 2004, Advanced monitoring and supervision of biological treatment of complex dairy effluents in a full-scale plant, Biotechnol. Prog., 20, 992, 10.1021/bp034211u · DOI
  8. Colleran, 1995, Anaerobic treatment of sulphate – containing waste streams, Antonie van Leeuwenhoec, 67, 29, 10.1007/BF00872194 · DOI
  9. Davister, A., 1998. Phosphogypsum-a waste (more or less harmful) or a resource? IFA Technical Conference, Marrakech, Marocco, pp. 1–9.
  10. Hao, 1996, Sulfate-reducing bacteria, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 26, 155, 10.1080/10643389609388489 · DOI
  11. Hernandez-Eugenio, 2000, Desulfovibrio mexicanus sp. November, a sulfate-reducing bacterium isolated from an upflow anaerobic sludge blancet (UASB) reactor treating cheese wastewaters, Anaerobe, 6, 305, 10.1006/anae.2000.0354 · DOI
  12. Kalyuzhnyi, 1998, Mathematical modelling as a tool to study population dynamics between sulfate reducing and methanogenic bacteria, Biodegradation, 9, 187, 10.1023/A:1008339018423 · DOI
  13. Kleikemper, 2002, Sulfate-reducing bacterial community response to carbon source amendments in contaminated aquifer microcosms, FEMS Microbiol. Ecol., 42, 109, 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb01000.x · DOI
  14. Oude Elferinck, 1998, Desulforhabdus amnigenus gen. sp. November, a sulfate reducers isolated from anaerobic granular sludge, Arch. Microbiol., 164, 119, 10.1007/BF02525317 · DOI
  15. Postgate, J.R., 1984. The sulphate reducing bacteria. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Sass, 2002, Desulfobulbus mediterraneus sp. November, a sulfate-reducing bacterium growing on mono- and disaccharides, Arch. Microbiol., 177, 468, 10.1007/s00203-002-0415-5 · DOI
  17. Varjo, 2003, A new gypsum-based technique to reduce methane and phosphorus release from sediments of eutrophied lakes: (Gypsym treatment to reduce internal loading), Water Res., 37, 1, 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00264-6 · DOI
  18. Wolicka, 2005, Utilization of different carbon compounds by sulphate reducing bacteria in mediums with phosphogypsum, Arch. Environ. Studies, 31, 105
  19. Wolicka, 2005, Biotransformation of phosphogypsum by bacteria isolated from petroleum-refining wastewaters, Polish J. Microbiol., 54, 169
  20. Wolicka, 2006, Biotransformation of phosphogypsum in petroleum-refining wastewaters, Polish J. Environ. Studies, 2, 355
  21. Wolicka, 2006, Biotransformation of phosphogypsum on distillery decoctions (preliminary results), Polish J. Microbiol., 55, 147

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wolicka, D.
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
99
Issue
13
Pages
5666-5672
ISSN
0960-8524
DOI
10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.029
Cited by
19
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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