4.8 Article

Determination of neo- and D-chiro-Inositol Hexakisphosphate in Soils by Solution 31P NMR Spectroscopy

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 4994-5002

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es204446z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [082837]
  2. National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The inositol phosphates are an abundant but poorly understood group of organic phosphorus compounds found widely in the environment. Four stereoisomers of inositol hexakisphosphate (IP6) occur, although for three of these (scyllo, flea, and D-chiro) the origins, dynamics, and biological function remain unknown, due in large part to analytical limitations in their measurement in environmental samples. We synthesized authentic neo- and n-chiro-IP6 and used them to identify signals from these compounds in three soils from the Falkland Islands. Both compounds resisted hypobromite oxidation and gave quantifiable P-31 NMR signals at delta = 6.67 ppm (equatorial phosphate groups of the 4-equatorial/2-axial conformer of neo-IP6) and delta = 6.48 ppm (equatorial phosphate groups of the 2-equatorial/4-axial conformer of D-chiro-IP6) in soil extracts. Inositol hexakisphosphate accounted for 46-54% of the soil organic phosphorus, of which the four stereoisomers constituted, on average, 55.9% (myo), 32.8% (scyllo), 6.1% (neo), and 5.2% (n-chiro). Reappraisal of the literature based on the new signal assignments revealed that neo- and D-chiro-IP6 occur widely in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. These results confirm that the inositol phosphates can constitute a considerable fraction of the organic phosphorus in soils and reveal the prevalence of neo- and D-chiro-IP6 in the environment. The hypobromite oxidation and solution P-31 NMR spectroscopy procedure allows the simultaneous quantification of all four IP6 stereoisomers in environmental samples and provides a platform for research into the origins and ecological significance of these enigmatic compounds.

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

4.8
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