4.6 Article

Atrazine degradation by encapsulated Rhodococcus erythropolis NI86/21

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 767-775

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02679.x

关键词

alginate; atrazine; cell encapsulation; degradation; Rhodococcus erythropolis NI86/21

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To develop an encapsulation procedure for Rhodococcus erythropolis NI86/21 and demonstrate its use as a slow-release inoculant for reducing atrazine levels in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Methods and Results: Alginate encapsulation procedures were developed for the atrazine-degrading bacteria R. erythropolis NI86/21. Several bead amendments, including bentonite, powdered activated carbon (PAC) and skimmed milk (SM), were evaluated for slow release of R. erythropolis NI86/21 and efficacy of atrazine degradation. All bead types demonstrated a capacity to degrade atrazine in basal minimal nutrient buffer whilst continually releasing viable bacterial cells. We found that the addition of bentonite hastened cell release whilst SM sustained cell viability in bead formulations. Reducing the percentage of SM to 1% (w/v) resulted in faster rates of atrazine degradation in both liquid and soil, and was found to prolong cell survival upon bead storage. Limited oxygen transfer affects the capacity of the encapsulated R. erythropolis cells to degrade atrazine. Conclusions: Degradation studies have demonstrated the efficacy of R. erythropolis encapsulated cells to degrade atrazine in amended liquid and soil. However, in their current formulation, the wet alginate-based beads are impractical for field application because of their poor cell viability during storage. Significance and Impact of the Study: R. erythropolis NI86/21-encapsulated cells have the potential to reduce atrazine residues in a number of soil and water environments, possibly ensuring the continued registration and use of atrazine in agriculture by minimizing or eliminating nontarget effects.

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

4.6
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