4.7 Article

Fractionation of N2O isotopomers during production by denitrifier

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 1535-1545

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.01.009

关键词

nitrous oxide (N2O); denitrification; isotopomers; N-15-site preference; denitifying bacteria; isotopic fractionation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isotopomer ratios of N2O, which include intramolecular N-15-site preference in addition to conventional isotope ratios for N and O in NNO (we designate N-alpha and N-beta for the center and end N atom, respectively, in the asymmetric molecule), reflect production and consumption processes of this greenhouse gas. Therefore, they are useful parameters for deducing global N2O budget. This paper reports the first precise measurement of N-15-site preference in N2O produced by two species of denitrifying bacteria, Pseudomonas fluorescens (ATCC 13525) and Paracoccus denitrificans (ATCC 17741). Cultures were incubated in a batch mode with a liquid medium that contains KNO3 as unique nitrogen supply under acetylene/helium (10% v/v) atmosphere at 27 degrees C. Enrichment factors for N-15 in bulk nitrogen in N2O (average for N-alpha and N-beta) fluctuated in a few tens permil showing a slight difference between the species. In contrast, N-15-site preference (difference in isotope ratios between N-alpha and N-beta) showed nearly constant and distinct value for the two species (23.3 +/- 4.2 and -5.1 +/- 1.8 parts per thousand for P. fluorescens and P. denitrificans, respectively). The site preference was also measured for N2O produced by inorganic reactions (nitrite reduction and hydroxylamine oxidation); a unique value (about 30 parts per thousand for the both reactions) was obtained. These results and those recently reported for nitrifying bacteria suggest that N-15-site preference in N2O can be used to identify the production processes of N2O on the level of bacterial species or enzymes involved. (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

4.7
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