4.7 Article

Use of an integrated metabolomics platform for mechanistic investigations of three commonly used algaecides on cyanobacterium, Microcystis aeruginosa

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 367, 期 -, 页码 120-127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.069

关键词

Metabolomics; Mass spectrometry; Algaecides; Mechanisms; Untargeted analysis

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) Programme (E2S2-CREATE project CS-B: Challenge of Emerging Contaminants on Environmental Sustainability in
  2. Environment and Water Technologies (EWT) Visiting Professor Programme (VPP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Algal blooms are a global environmental and public health problem. Copper Sulfate (CuSO4), Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) and Sodium Carbonate Peroxide (SCP) are commonly used algaecides for algal bloom control. However, their efficacy and mechanisms of interaction with algae have not been well studied. This study aimed to compare their capability, and concurrently elucidate the metabolic responses of a common cyanobacterium, Microcystis aeruginosa. Algal responses were measured by cell density, chlorophyll a, toxin release and an integrated GC- and LC- Mass Spectrometry-Time of Flight metabolomics platform. CuSO4 was observed to kill the algae cells rapidly at relative low concentration, compared with the other two algaecides. However, it led to severe secondary contamination, with substantial release of various microcystins. Metabolomics data showed that a total of 32 metabolites were significantly changed compared with the controls. Most of the metabolites identified in CuSO4 treated algae were significantly reduced, whereas metabolites in algae treated with H2O2 and SCP were found to increase, and were of similar types. Although most of the metabolites identified for the three algaecides are associated to oxidative stress, the pathways affected appear to be different.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据