4.1 Article

Matrix bound phosphine formation and depletion in eutrophic lake sediment fermentation - simulation of different environmental factors

期刊

ANAEROBE
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 273-279

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2005.04.003

关键词

phosphine; accumulation; depletion; lake sediments; anaerobic environmental factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Closed anaerobic batch-fermentation of eutrophic lake sediment samples was performed under variation of four environmental fermentation factors (pH, temperature, water/sediment ratio and disturbance) to learn how the quantity of phosphine will change and if the quantity of phosphine can increase. The fermentation conditions where matrix bound phosphine (MBP) increased (doubled from 3 193 +/- 520 to about 7 982 +/- 1003 ng/kg) were: a pH of 8 and of 10 (as compared to 1, 2, 4, 6, 12), a tedmperature of 20 and 30 degrees C (as compared to 4 and 40 degrees C), a water/sediment ratio of 3:1 (as compared to 1:1, 2:1, 5:1) and a disturbance of 100r/min (as compared to 0r/min), respectively. Although, over the full time course of fermentation, the balance of phosphine production became negative again or did remain almost unchanged under most conditions. A pH of I or disturbance of 150r/min was significant factors to decrease phosphine over the long term. Free phosphine had been detected but was of minor importance (in the order of 60.9 +/- 10.1 ng/m(3)). Overall, the fermentation conditions which had been most favorable for microbial life (moderate temperature (20 and 30 degrees C and pH 8) were also most favorable for a positive phosphine balance. This is an indication, but no biochemical proof that a natural (biogenic, microbial, biochemical) NET PRODUCTION of phosphine or DE NOVO PRODUCTION of phosphine has occurred. MBP concentrations in lake sediments were discussed as to be strongly dependent on a balance of natural generation and depletion processes, dependent of the simulated parameters. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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