Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 1316–1322 | Cite as

A new insight into a problem of mediating effects of humic acids on binding and biological effects of organic pollutants in natural soil

  • Olga Nikolaevna AlexanderovaEmail author
Soil Pollution and Remediation

Abstract

Purpose

A major focus of this manuscript is to investigate the molecular environment of soil where organic pollutants including an active functional group, such as amine, are bound to humic acids (HA). Close consideration has been taken to binding and biological effects of organic pollutants in natural soil mediated by HA in dependence on the amine base.

Materials and methods

The investigation is carried out using a method of spin labeling electron paramagnetic resonance (SL EPR). Spin labels (SL) 2,5,5-trimethyl-2-(3-aminophenyl)pyrrolidin-1-yloxy (Anilino-SL) and 4-Amino-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl (4-Amino-TEMPO), as well as extracellular fungal laccase from Trametes versicolor, are applied to samples of chernozem, its HA and standard HA, such as Elliott Soil HA, Pahokee Peat HA, leonardite.

Results and discussion

It is shown that HA mediate the interaction of amines with soil through the partitioning of them among the different compartments of soil in dependence on the amine base. Both aliphatic and aromatic amines become immediately bound to soil organic matter but via different mechanisms. HA bind only the aromatic amines. Their binding sites are located in the hydrophobic and anaerobic compartments of soil. Moreover, spectroscopic analysis evidenced that a number of binding sites are limited, and aromatic amines attracted to hydrophobic compartments in the soil environment form here the ordered structure. Kinetic analysis of a temporal change in the concentration of bound and non-bound aromatic amines points at a pronounced diamagnetic effect of compartments where aromatic amines become bound. In contrast to amine with a weak base, the aliphatic amines are not influenced by HA and remain in an active soil part.

Conclusions

Manuscript concludes that mediating effects of HA are first realized through their electrochemical property. They define and isolate pollutants with a definitive base that can be described using the Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient. This binding in turn defines a biological effect of organic pollutants including amine with a weak base via the oxygen factor that results in a decrease in the magnitude of aerobic soil biota and disbalance of the soil microorganism community.

Keywords

Biological effects Humic acids Mediating effects Polluted soil Spectroscopic analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge fruitful opportunity to carry out my personal experiments granted by Prof. Dr. M. Matthies and Prof. Dr. Heinz-Juergen Steinhoff of University Osnabrueck, Germany.

I wish to thank Prof. Dr. Irina Perminova and Dr. V. Kholodov of Moscow State University for useful discussions.

References

  1. Aleksandrova ON (2013) Spin labeling ESR investigation of the molecular environment of soil interacting with chemical organic contaminants. J Geochem Explor 129:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleksandrova ON (2014) Spin labeling ESR investigation of a role of humic acids at covalent binding of xenobiotics to soil. EGU2014-13421Google Scholar
  3. Aleksandrova ON, Steinhoff HJ, Klasmeier J et al (2011) ESR investigation of stable organic radicals in soils. EUROMAR2011: 235Google Scholar
  4. Aleksandrova ON, Steinhoff HJ, Klasmeier J et al (2013) Spin labeling ESR investigation of covalently bound residues in soil. EGU2013-12440Google Scholar
  5. Berliner LJ (ed) (1998) Spin labelling: biological magnetic resonance, vol 14. Plenum Press, NY and LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollag JM, Myers C (1992) Detoxification of aquatic and terrestrial sites through binding of pollutants to humic substances. Sci Total Environ 117(118):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton GW, Doba T, Gabe EJ et al (1985) Autoxidation of biological molecules. 4 Maximazing the antioxidant activity of phenols. J Am Chem Soc 107:7053–7065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruz ALN, Gehling W, Lomnicki S et al (2011) Detection of environmentally persistent free radicals at a Superfund Wood treating site. Environ Sci Technol 45:6356–6365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferreira JA, Nascimento OR, Martin-Neto L (2001) Hydrophobic interaction between spin-label 5-SASL and humic acid as revealed by ESR spectroscopy. Environ Sci Technol 35:761–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foti MC, Daquino C, Mackie ID et al (2008) Reactions of phenols with 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical. Kinetics and DFT calculations applied to determine ArO·H bond dissociation enthalpies and reaction mechanism. J Org Chem 73:9270–9282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gulkowska A, Thalmann BD, Hollender J, Krauss M (2014) Nonextractable residue formation of sulfonamide antimicrobials: new insights from soil incubation experiments. Chemosphere 107:366–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heuer H, Focks A, Lamshöft M et al (2008) Fate of sulfadiazine administered to pigs and its quantitative effect on the dynamics of bacterial resistance genes in manure and manured soil. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1892–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kholodov VA, Konstantinov AI, Belyaeva EY et al (2009) Structure of humic acids isolated by sequential alkaline extraction from a typical chernozem. Eurasian Soil Sci 42(10):1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Likhtenstein GI (1976) Spin labeling methods in molecular biology. Join Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Nowak KM, Miltner A, Gehre M, Schaeffer A, Kaestner M (2011) Formation and fate of bound residues from microbial biomass during 2,4-D Degradation in soil. Environ Sci Technol 45:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Othon CM, Kwon OH, Lin MM, Zeweil AH (2009) Solvation in protein (un)folding of melittin tetramer-monomer transition. PNAS 106(31):12593–12598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pan B, Xing B (2013) Sorption comparison between pharmaceuticals and hydrophobic organic chemicals in soils and sedimentes. In: Xu J, Sparks DL (eds) Molecular environmental soil science. Springer, Netherlands, pp 323–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Paul A, Stoesser R, Zehl A et al (2006) Nature and abundance of organic radicals in natural organic matter: effect of pH and irradiation. Environ Sci Technol 40:5897–5903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perminova IV (2000) Analyses, classification and prediction of properties of humus acids. Habilitation Theses, Moscow State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Perminova IV, Hartfield K (2005) Remediation chemistry of humic substances: theory and implications for technology. In: Perminova IV et al (eds) Use of humic substances to remediate polluted environments: from theory to practice. Springer, Netherlands, pp 3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rabinovich ML, Bolobova A, Vasil’chenko LG (2004) Fungal decomposition of natural aromatic structures and xenobiotics: a review. Appl Biochem Microbiol 40:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sankaram MB, Marsh D (1998) Analysis of spin label line shapes with novel inhomogeneous broadening from different component widths: application to spatially disconnected domains in membranes. In: Berliner LJ (ed) Spin labeling: biological magnetic resonance, vol 14. Plenum Press, NY and London, pp 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schauss K, Focks A, Heuer H et al (2009) Analysis, fate and effects of the antibiotic sulfadiazine in soil ecosystems. Trend Anal Chem 28(5):612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Senesi N (1992) Binding mechanisms of pesticides to soil humic substances. Sci Total Environ 123(124):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skrzypczak-Bonduelle A, Binet L, Delpoux O et al (2008) EPR of radicals in primitive organic matter: a tool for the search of biosignatures of the most ancient traces of life. Appl Magn Reson 33:371–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinhoff HJ (2013) The EPR spectrometer and site-directed spin labelling. Workshop, University of OsnabrueckGoogle Scholar
  27. Tappe W, Zarfl C, Kummer S et al (2008) Growth-inhibitory effects of sulfonamides at different pH: dissimilar susceptibility patterns of a soil bacterium and a test bacterium used for antibiotic assays. Chemosphere 72:836–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Voinov MA, Smirnov AI (2011) Spin Labels and spin probes for measurements of local pH and electrostatics by EPR. In: Gilbert BC et al (eds) Electron Paramagnetic Resonance. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 71–106Google Scholar
  29. Weber EJ, Spidle DL, Thron KA (1996) Covalent binding of aniline to humic substances. 1. Kinetic Studies. Environ Sci Technol 30(9):2755–2763CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ural Federal UniversityEkaterinburgRussia

Personalised recommendations