2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2006.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biosorption of mercury on magnetically modified yeast cells

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
56
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 153 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…During the early stage of biosorption process, there was an external surface mass transport or film diffusion process (process I) followed by a constant rate stage (process II) and ultimately by a diffusion stage (process III) where the biosorption process slowed down considerably (30). The very small difference between the vertical error bars, a measure of standard deviation, showed very stable and reproducible results.…”
Section: Effect Of Contact Timementioning
confidence: 94%
“…During the early stage of biosorption process, there was an external surface mass transport or film diffusion process (process I) followed by a constant rate stage (process II) and ultimately by a diffusion stage (process III) where the biosorption process slowed down considerably (30). The very small difference between the vertical error bars, a measure of standard deviation, showed very stable and reproducible results.…”
Section: Effect Of Contact Timementioning
confidence: 94%
“…The biomass of some microorganisms (such as bacteria, fungi and algae) has been used for the removal of Hg(II) from aqueous solutions and promising results were obtained [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. However, more efforts are still required to supplement the development of effective biosorption processes for Hg(II) removal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and 11.8 mg g -1 for Zn 2? (Yavuz et al 2006). Tomska and Wolny found that COD removal for testing unit where the activated sludge return was exposed to magnetic field was as higher as for control unit, while the nitrification process was more effective for testing unit with magnets (Tomska and Wolny 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%