Degradation of pseudo-solubilized and mass hexadecane by a Pseudomonas aeruginosa with treatment of rhamnolipid biosurfactant

Zhong, Hua; Liu, Yang; Liu, Zhifeng; Jiang, Ying; Tan, Fei; Zeng, Guangming; Yuan, Xingzhong; Yan, Ming; Niu, Qiuya; Liang, Yue

doi:10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.07.012

Cited by 38 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then the flasks were held stationary for 2 h to allow establishment of stable phase distributions. 4 ml of the aqueous solution was separated and collected using the method described by Zhong et al 14 . 1 mL of the collected samples was removed for hexadecane concentration measurement, and another 2 mL was used for measurement on size and zeta potential of the aggregate particles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 mL of the collected samples was removed for hexadecane concentration measurement, and another 2 mL was used for measurement on size and zeta potential of the aggregate particles. The hexadecane concentration was measured using gas chromatography (Agilent GC 6890N) following the procedures described by Zhong et al 14 . Samples with 8000 μM SDBS or with 1000 μM Triton X-100 were centrifugally filtered using 30KD ultrafiltration membrane (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) followed by hexadecane concentration measurement in the filtrate to check the partition of hexadecane.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To examine the stability of solubilized hexadecane, 4 mL of the solubilized hexadecane solution obtained with 50 μM SDBS or 25 μM Triton X-100 were sealed and allowed to stand still for 48 hours. Then 3 mL of the solution were again separated using the method described by Zhong et al 14 and hexadecane concentration was measured.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar results were observed for hexadecane solubilization in the presence of a monorhamnolipid in our prior study. 14 Kile and Chiou investigated solubilization of DDT by surfactants Triton and Brij, and enhancement of apparent DDT solubility was also observed below the nominal CMC. 5 To our knowledge, the mechanisms for these observations of sub-CMC solubilization, for example the potential for aggregate formation below CMC, have not been systematically investigated in prior studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Aggregate-based sub-CMC solubilization of hexadecane by surfactants

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solubilization of hexadecane by two surfactants, SDBS and Triton X-100, at concentrations near the critical micelle concentration (CMC) and the related aggregation behavior was investigated in this study. Solubilization was observed at surfactant concentrations lower than CMC, and the apparent solubility of hexadecane increased linearly with surfactant concentration for both surfactants. The capacity of SDBS to solubilize hexadecane is stronger at concentrations below CMC than above CMC. In contrast, Triton X-100 shows no difference. The results of dynamic light scattering (DLS) and cryogenic TEM analysis show aggregate formation at surfactant concentrations lower than CMC. DLS-based size of the aggregates (d) decreases with increasing surfactant concentration. Zeta potential of the SDBS aggregates decreases with increasing SDBS concentration, whereas it increases for Triton X-100. The surface excess (Γ) of SDBS calculated based on hexadecane solubility and aggregate size data increases rapidly with increasing bulk concentration, and then asymptotically approaches the maximum surface excess (Γmax). Conversely, there is only a minor increase in Γ for Triton X-100. Comparison of Γ and d indicates that excess of surfactant molecules at aggregate surface has great impact on surface curvature. The results of this study demonstrate formation of aggregates at surfactant concentrations below CMC for hexadecane solubilization, and indicate the potential of employing low-concentration strategy for surfactant application such as remediation of HOC contaminated sites.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Aggregate-based sub-CMC solubilization of hexadecane by surfactants

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MEUF offers advantages including a simple operation, a high recovery efficiency, and a high removal efficiency [7][8][9][10][11],all of which make MEUF promising for aniline wastewater treatment. However, researchers worldwide have mainly used chemical surfactants [12,13], while studies on the applications of bio-surfactants in micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration remain limited [14][15][16]. However, chemical surfactants have disadvantages, such as high critical micelle concentrations (CMCs), high dosages, unfavorable economics, and the likely consequence of secondary pollution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the Removal of Aniline from Wastewater via MEUF Using Mixed Surfactants

Zhang²,

Chai

et al. 2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper, the anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and the bio-surfactant rhamnolipid are mixed to achieve micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration, and the associated aniline removal efficiency is investigated. The impacts of five factors, including the mixing ratio of the SDS concentration to the rhamnolipid concentration, the pH, the salinity, the operating pressure, and the aniline concentration in the feed solution, on the aniline rejection and the membrane permeation flux are explored. The aniline rejection mechanism of the rhamnolipid mixture surfactant is analyzed. This study shows that the effect of these factors on the aniline rejection is in the order of pH > mixing ratio > operating pressure > aniline concentration > salinity; the factors that affect the membrane permeation flux are in the order of mixing ratio > operating pressure > salinity > pH > aniline concentration. Under the optimal test conditions (i.e., SDS:rhamnolipid = 8:2, pH = 5, salinity = 250 mmol/L, operating pressure = 3.5 bar, aniline concentration = 1.5 mM), the verification test results showed an aniline rejection of 78.36%.

show abstract