4.7 Article

Comparative investigation on a hexane-degrading strain with different cell surface hydrophobicities mediated by starch and chitosan

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 101, 期 9, 页码 3829-3837

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-017-8100-4

关键词

Biodegradation; Cell surface hydrophobicity; Hexane; Kinetic

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51178430, 21477116, 21276239]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT13096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioremediation usually exhibits low removal efficiency toward hexane because of poor water solubility, which limits the mass transfer rate between the substrate and microorganism. This work aimed to enhance the hexane degradation rate by increasing cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) of the degrader, Pseudomonas mendocina NX-1. The CSH of P. mendocina NX-1 was manipulated by treatment with starch and chitosan solution of varied concentrations, reaching a maximum hydrophobicity of 52%. The biodegradation of hexane conformed to the Haldane inhibition model, and the maximum degradation rate (nu (max)) of the cells with 52% CSH was 0.72 mg (mg cell)(-1)center dot h(-1) in comparison with 0.47 mg (mg cell)(-1)center dot h(-1) for cells with 15% CSH. The production of CO2 by high CSH cells was threefold higher than that by cells at 15% CSH within 30 h, and the cumulative rates of O-2 consumption were 0.16 and 0.05 mL/h, respectively. High CSH was related to low negative charge carried by the cell surface and probably reduced the repulsive electrostatic interactions between hexane and microorganisms. The FT-IR spectra of cell envelopes demonstrated that the methyl chain was inversely proportional to increasing CSH values, but proteins exhibited a positive effect to CSH enhancement. The ratio of extracellular proteins and polysaccharides increased from 0.87 to 3.78 when the cells were treated with starch and chitosan, indicating their possible roles in increased CSH.

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

4.7
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