4.8 Article

STXM and NanoSIMS Investigations on EPS Fractions before and after Adsorption to Goethite

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 7, 页码 3158-3166

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es3039505

关键词

-

资金

  1. Graduate School of Excellence, Jena School for Microbial Communication
  2. Distributed Infrastructure for Experimentation in Ecosystem Research (EX-PEER) [FP7 -262060]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Graduate School) [1257]
  4. MikroPlex [PE113-1]
  5. Office of Science, Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) are expected to be an important source for the formation of mineral-organic associations in soil. Because such formations affect the composition of mobile and immobile organic matter as well as the reactivity of minerals, we investigated the composition of EPS before and after adsorption to goethite. Raman measurements on EPS extracted from Bacillus subtilis distinguished four fractions rich in proteins, polysaccharides, lipids, or lipids and proteins. Scanning transmission X-ray microscopy identified three different EPS-fractions that varied in their composition in proteins, nonaromatic proteins, and polysaccharides. Reaction of EPS with goethite led to a preferential adsorption of lipids and proteins. The organic coverage was heterogeneous, consisting of similar to 100 X 200 nm large patches of either lipid-rich or protein-rich material. Nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry showed a strong S enrichment in aggregates of similar to 400 nm in the goethite adsorbed EPS. From our simplified model system, we learned that only a small portion (<10%) of EPS was immobilized via adsorption to goethite. This fraction formed a coating of sub mu m spaced protein-rich and lipid-rich domains, i.e., of two materials which will strongly differ in their reactive sites. This will finally affect further adsorption, the particle mobility and eventually also colloidal stability.

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