title: Role of brown-rot fungi in the bioremoval of azo dyes under different conditions.
abstract: The present study is vital to the understanding of bioremediation of structurally different azo dyes by some unusual Brown-rot fungi. Bioremoval of each dye (20 mg l(-1)) was tested in two different culture media under static and shaking conditions by taking inocula from different fungi. Fungal strains showed varying dyes removal abilities, though considerable high in case of Acid Red (AR) 151(di-azo) as compared to Orange (Or) II (mono-azo). With an exception of Aspergillus tereus SA3, all the fungal isolates showed higher removal of dyes in SDB. Under static condition, the maximum decolorizing fungal strains were; Aspergillus flavus SA2 (67%) and Alternaria spp. SA4 (57%) in AR 151, while Penicillium spp. (34 and 33 %) in Orange II, in SDB and STE, respectively. Bioremoval of dyes was considerably increased when experiments were shifted from static to shaking mode. It was specifically increased (%) in; AR 151 (255) with Penicillium spp., Or II with A. flavus SA2 (112) and Alternaria spp. (111). The primary mechanism of dyes removal proved to be fungal biosorption. However, reduction of dyes (onto fungal) with formation of their products (α. naphthol, sulphalinic acid and aniline) furthermore revealed that dyes (specifically azo) were actually biodegraded.
authors.affiliation: Department of Microbiology, Quaid-i-Azam University , Islamabad , Pakistan.
authors.forename: Naeem
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Ali
authors.forename: Abdul
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Hameed
authors.forename: Safia
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Ahmed
keywords: Azo dyes; Bio-decolorization; Bio-removal; Fungi; culture conditions
references.citation: Can J Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(10):857-70
references.pmid: 12489775
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 May;62(5):1814-7
references.pmid: 16535325
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2003 Jun;88(2):115-9
references.pmid: 12576004
references.citation: Waste Manag. 2002;22(6):575-82
references.pmid: 12214968
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 Nov;58(11):3605-13
references.pmid: 1482183
references.citation: J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2003;22(2):101-9
references.pmid: 14533873
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001 Oct;57(1-2):20-33
references.pmid: 11693920
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2004 Jan;91(1):69-75
references.pmid: 14585623
references.citation: Lett Appl Microbiol. 2001 Jul;33(1):21-5
references.pmid: 11442809
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001 Jul;56(1-2):81-7
references.pmid: 11499950
references.citation: Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol. 2004 Jan-Feb;40(1):5-23
references.pmid: 15029691
references.citation: J Biotechnol. 2001 Aug 23;89(2-3):131-9
references.pmid: 11500206
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2000 Jul 1;188(1):93-6
references.pmid: 10867240
references.citation: Water Res. 2004 Apr;38(8):2166-72
references.pmid: 15087198
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 Feb;49(2):299-304
references.pmid: 16346716
references.citation: J Microbiol. 2005 Dec;43(6):503-9
references.pmid: 16410766
references.citation: Biotechnol Adv. 2003 Dec;22(1-2):161-87
references.pmid: 14623049
references.citation: J Biotechnol. 2001 Aug 23;89(2-3):141-5
references.pmid: 11500207
references.citation: Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2006;51(6):573-8
references.pmid: 17455794
references.citation: J Biosci Bioeng. 2007 Aug;104(2):104-10
references.pmid: 17884654
references.citation: Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1998;43(1):85-8
references.pmid: 9616055
references.citation: Environ Monit Assess. 2002 Jan;73(1):41-66
references.pmid: 11878628
references.citation: Environ Technol. 2008 Aug;29(8):921-9
references.pmid: 18724647
references.citation: Environ Int. 2004 Sep;30(7):953-71
references.pmid: 15196844
references.citation: Enzyme Microb Technol. 2000 Sep 1;27(6):347-355
references.pmid: 10938413