4.8 Article

Impact of bioavailability restrictions on microbially induced stable isotope fractionation. 2. Experimental evidence

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 42, 期 17, 页码 6552-6558

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es702781x

关键词

-

资金

  1. European [MEST-CT-2004-8332]
  2. Helmholtz Association [VG-NG-338]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable isotope fractionation analysis (SIFA) of contaminants is an emerging technique to characterize in situ microbial activity. The kinetic isotope effect in microbial degradation reactions, or enzyme catalysis, is caused by the preferential cleavage of bonds containing light rather than heavy isotopes. This leads to a relative enrichment of the heavier isotopes in the residual substrate pool. However, a number of nonisotopically sensitive steps preceding the isotopically sensitive bond cleavage may affect the reaction kinetics of a degradation process, thus reducing the observed (i.e., the macroscopically detectable) isotope fractionation. Low bioavailability of contaminants poses kinetic limitations on the biodegradation process and can significantly reduce the observed kinetic isotope fractionation. Here we present experimental evidence for the influence of bioavailability-limited pollutant biodegradation on observed stable isotope fractionation. Batch laboratory experiments were performed to quantify the toluene hydrogen isotope fractionation of Pseudomonas putida mt-2(pWWO) subjected to different small concentrations of toluene with and without deuterium label, which corresponded to realistic environmental mass transfer scenarios. Detected isotope fractionations depended significantly on the toluene concentration, hence confirming the influence of substrate mass transfer limitation on observed isotope fractionation, hypothesized by Thullner et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 6544-6551). Our results indicate that the bioavailability of a substrate should be considered during quantitative analysis of microbial degradation based on SIFA.

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

4.8
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