4.7 Article

Persistence and degradation of new β-lactam antibiotics in the soil and water environment

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 93, Issue 1, Pages 152-159

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.05.016

Keywords

Azetidinones; Amoxicillin; Hydrolysis; Environmental fate; Antimicrobial agents

Funding

  1. University of Bologna
  2. Fondazione Fibrosi Cistica onlus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of new antibiotics with low environmental persistence is of utmost importance in contrasting phenomena of antibiotic resistance. In this study, the persistence of two newly synthesized monocyclic beta-lactam antibiotics: (2R)-1-(methylthio)-4-oxoazetidin-2-yl acetate, P1, and (2R,3R)-3-((1R)-1-(tert-butyldimethylsilanyloxy)ethyl)-1-(methylthio)-4-oxoazetidin-2-yl acetate, P2, has been investigated in water in the pH range 3-9 and in two (calcareous and forest) soils, then compared to amoxicillin, a beta-lactam antibiotic used in human and veterinary medicine. P1 and P2 persistence in water was lower than that of amoxicillin with only a few exceptions. P1 hydrolysis was catalyzed at an acidic pH whereas P2 hydrolysis takes place at both acidic and alkaline pH values. P1 persistence in soils depended mainly on their water potential (t(1/2): 35.0-70.7 d at wilting point; <1 d at field capacity) whereas for P2 it was shorter and unaffected by soil water content (t(1/2) 0.13-2.5 d). Several degradation products were detected in soils at both water potentials, deriving partly from hydrolytic pathways and partly from microbial transformation. The higher LogK(ow) value for P2 compared with P1 seemingly confers P2 with high permeability to microbial membranes regardless of soil water content. P1 and P2 persistence in soils at wilting point was shorter than that of amoxicillin, whereas it had the same extent at field capacity. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available