Cargando…
Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite
Three different biological systems, the consortium of autotrophic bacteria Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, heterotrophic fungus Aspergillus niger and heterotrophic yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, were investigated for lithium extraction from lepidolite. The bacteria...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32884068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71596-5 |
_version_ | 1783578744532762624 |
---|---|
author | Sedlakova-Kadukova, J. Marcincakova, R. Luptakova, A. Vojtko, M. Fujda, M. Pristas, P. |
author_facet | Sedlakova-Kadukova, J. Marcincakova, R. Luptakova, A. Vojtko, M. Fujda, M. Pristas, P. |
author_sort | Sedlakova-Kadukova, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Three different biological systems, the consortium of autotrophic bacteria Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, heterotrophic fungus Aspergillus niger and heterotrophic yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, were investigated for lithium extraction from lepidolite. The bacterial consortium was the most effective, 11 mg l(−1) of Li was dissolved in the absence of nutrients within 336 days. Fungal and yeast bioleaching was faster (40 days), however, with lower extraction efficiency. Bioaccumulation represented a main process of Li extraction by R. mucilaginosa and A. niger, with 92 and 77% of total extracted Li accumulated in the biomass, respectively. The X-ray diffraction analysis for bioleaching residue indicated changes caused by microorganisms, however, with differences between bacterial leaching and bioleaching by fungi or yeasts. The final bioleaching yields for bacterial consortium, A. niger and R. mucilaginosa were 8.8%, 0.2% and 1.1%, respectively. Two-step bioleaching using heterotrophic organisms followed by autotrophic bioleaching could lead to the increase of the process kinetics and efficiency. Bioaccumulation of Li offers strong advantage in Li extraction from solution. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7471267 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74712672020-09-04 Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite Sedlakova-Kadukova, J. Marcincakova, R. Luptakova, A. Vojtko, M. Fujda, M. Pristas, P. Sci Rep Article Three different biological systems, the consortium of autotrophic bacteria Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans, heterotrophic fungus Aspergillus niger and heterotrophic yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, were investigated for lithium extraction from lepidolite. The bacterial consortium was the most effective, 11 mg l(−1) of Li was dissolved in the absence of nutrients within 336 days. Fungal and yeast bioleaching was faster (40 days), however, with lower extraction efficiency. Bioaccumulation represented a main process of Li extraction by R. mucilaginosa and A. niger, with 92 and 77% of total extracted Li accumulated in the biomass, respectively. The X-ray diffraction analysis for bioleaching residue indicated changes caused by microorganisms, however, with differences between bacterial leaching and bioleaching by fungi or yeasts. The final bioleaching yields for bacterial consortium, A. niger and R. mucilaginosa were 8.8%, 0.2% and 1.1%, respectively. Two-step bioleaching using heterotrophic organisms followed by autotrophic bioleaching could lead to the increase of the process kinetics and efficiency. Bioaccumulation of Li offers strong advantage in Li extraction from solution. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7471267/ /pubmed/32884068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71596-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Sedlakova-Kadukova, J. Marcincakova, R. Luptakova, A. Vojtko, M. Fujda, M. Pristas, P. Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite |
title | Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite |
title_full | Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite |
title_fullStr | Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite |
title_short | Comparison of three different bioleaching systems for Li recovery from lepidolite |
title_sort | comparison of three different bioleaching systems for li recovery from lepidolite |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32884068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71596-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sedlakovakadukovaj comparisonofthreedifferentbioleachingsystemsforlirecoveryfromlepidolite AT marcincakovar comparisonofthreedifferentbioleachingsystemsforlirecoveryfromlepidolite AT luptakovaa comparisonofthreedifferentbioleachingsystemsforlirecoveryfromlepidolite AT vojtkom comparisonofthreedifferentbioleachingsystemsforlirecoveryfromlepidolite AT fujdam comparisonofthreedifferentbioleachingsystemsforlirecoveryfromlepidolite AT pristasp comparisonofthreedifferentbioleachingsystemsforlirecoveryfromlepidolite |