4.2 Article

Comparison of Three Bacterial Toxicity Assays for Imidazolium-Derived Ionic Liquids

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
卷 135, 期 12, 页码 1388-1392

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000092

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation's Research Experience for Teachers program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ionic liquids have become leading candidates for replacing many common organic solvents used in the chemical process industry. There is, however, a general lack of toxicology data relevant to wastewater treatment facility microbes for these compounds. In this study, we performed three bacterial-based toxicity assays on several imidazolium-derived compounds as well as the precursor compound 1-methylimidazole. Two of the assays, the Shk1 and Microtox assays, are used as surrogate assays for toxicity to bacterial respiration in activated sludge wastewater treatment plants. The third assay was a direct measure of the effect of toxicity on mixed bacterial culture respiration, using a commercially available consortium of naturally occurring bacteria to obtain IC50 values for direct comparison to the EC50 values from the surrogate assays. The Shk1 assay is based on a genetically engineered bioluminescent Pseudomonas bacterium and is more highly correlated with the respiration inhibition than the Microtox assay. The Shk1 assay gave EC50 values more similar to IC50 values from the bacterial respiration inhibition assay for the compounds tested in this work. The Shk1 EC50 values were similar to that of 1-butanol, an alcohol with an alkyl chain length similar to that of the cation of the tested compounds, which were 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bromide ([bmim][Br]), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([bmim][PF6]), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, ([bmim][Tf2N]), and the precursor compound 1-methylimidazole, and were generally smaller than those typical of aromatic organic solvents.

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

4.2
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