4.3 Article

Soil bacteria and protists show different sensitivity to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at controlled chemical activity

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 366, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fnz214

关键词

Soil microorganisms; Protista; chemical activity; PAH; toxicity; bioavailability

资金

  1. EU [213161]
  2. Center for Environmental and Agricultural Microbiology (CREAM) - Villum Foundation
  3. University of Copenhagen via the emerging elite research area 'Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology'
  4. CEFIC Long-range Research Initiative [CEFIC-LRI ECO30-ARC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study linked growth inhibition of soil bacteria and protists to the chemical activity (a) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and compared the sensitivities of bacteria and protists. Passive dosing from pre-loaded silicone provided well-defined and constant a of PAHs in independent tests. Single-species growth inhibition with two bacterial (Pseuodomonas fluorescens DR54 and Sinorhizobium meliloti) and two protist (Cercomonas longicauda and Acanthamoeba castellanii) strains at maximum a (a(max)) of nine and four PAHs, respectively, showed no inhibition of PAHs with a(max) below 0.1 (pyrene and anthracene), while growth inhibition was observed for PAHs with a(max) above 0.1 (e.g. fluorene, fluoranthene and naphthalene). The bacteria were less sensitive than the protists. Soil bacterial community-level growth inhibition by naphthalene was in good agreement with single-species data, but also indicated the presence of sensitive bacteria that were inhibited by a below 0.05 and increasing pre-exposure time giving higher inhibition. The a of 50% inhibition (Ea(50)) was 0.434 and 0.329 for 0.5 and 4 h pre-exposure time, respectively. Invertebrates tended to be more sensitive than single-celled organisms tested here. This suggests that PAH exposure leads to differential toxicity in soil biota, which may affect soil food web structure and cycling of organic matter.

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

4.3
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