4.8 Article

Mass Transfer Limitation during Slow Anaerobic Biodegradation of 2-Methylnaphthalene

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 16, 页码 9481-9490

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01152

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU research project Kill Spill [312139]
  2. ERC consolidator grant - European Research Council [616861]
  3. German National Science Foundation (DFG) [CRC 1253]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [616861] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While they are theoretically conceptualized to restrict biodegradation of organic contaminants, bioavailability limitations are challenging to observe directly. Here we explore the onset of mass transfer limitations during slow biodegradation of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 2-methylnaphthalene (2-MN) by the anaerobic, sulfate-reducing strain NaphS2. Carbon and hydrogen compound specific isotope fractionation was pronounced at high aqueous 2-MN concentrations (60 mu M) (epsilon(carbon) =-2.1 +/- 0.1 parts per thousand/epsilon(hydrogen) = 40 7 parts per thousand) in the absence of an oil phase but became significantly smaller (epsilon(carbon) = -0.9 +/- 0.3 parts per thousand/epsilon(hydrogen) = -6 +/- 3%o) or nondetectable when low aqueous concentrations (4 mu M versus 0.5 mu M) were in equilibrium with 80 or 10 mM 2-MN in hexadecane, respectively. This masking of isotope fractionation directly evidenced mass transfer limitations at (sub)micromolar substrate concentrations. Remarkably, oil-water mass transfer coefficients were 60-90 times greater in biotic experiments than in the absence of bacteria (k(aq)(org-)aq2-MN = 0.01 +/- 0.003 cm h(-1)). The ability of isotope fractionation to identify mass transfer limitations may help study how microorganisms adapt and navigate at the brink of bioavailability at low concentrations. For field surveys our results imply that, at trace concentrations, the absence of isotope fractionation does not necessarily indicate the absence of biodegradation.

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