The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dye decolorization and detoxification by laccase immobilized on porous glass beads
Abstract
The decolorization and detoxification of textile dyes by fungal laccase immobilized on porous glass beads were evaluated. Anthraquinone (Reactive blue 19 and Dispersed blue 3) and indigoid (Acid blue 74) dyes were degraded more rapidly than the azo dyes (Acid red 27 and Reactive black 5). There was no dye sorption to the enzyme bed when decolorization rates were high (>12 microM dye/U-h) but at moderate rates (8 to>0.06 microM/U-h), there was a transient color which disappeared upon prolonged exposure. With Reactive black 5, permanent adsorption occurred most likely because laccase had been totally inactivated. Although laccase treatment was more efficient at decolorizing the anthraquinone dyes, their toxicity (as determined by the Microtox assay) increased while the less efficiently decolorized solutions of azo and indigoid dyes became less toxic. These results demonstrate the potential and limitations of using immobilized laccase to enzymatically decolorize a range of different dye classes and reduce dye toxicity in a single step.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Majority of examples examined are using lengthy synthesis procedures with many subsequent steps for materials synthesis and enzyme immobilisation, and further hazardous chemicals and unsustainable practices are usually employed.
“Majority of examples examined are using lengthy synthesis procedures with many subsequent steps for the materials synthesis and the immobilisation of the enzyme, and further hazardous chemicals and unsustainable practices are usually employed 189, 192, 196, 197, 199, 222-224 .”
From Degradation of anthraquinone dyes from effluents: A review focusing on enzymatic dye degradation with industrial potential (2020) · cites this paper as [197]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Routoula, E., & Patwardhan, S. V. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b03737 · Cited by 579
Pype, R., Flahaut, S., & Debaste, F. (2019) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2019.100324 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Champagne, P.-P., & Ramsay, J. A.
- Venue
- Bioresource Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2230-2235
- ISSN
- 0960-8524
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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