Surface tension technique as a strategy to evaluate the adsorption of biosurfactants used in soil remediation

Z. Gusiatin
{"title":"Surface tension technique as a strategy to evaluate the adsorption of biosurfactants used in soil remediation","authors":"Z. Gusiatin","doi":"10.14799/EBMS267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated the adsorption of two biosurfactants, non‐ionic saponin and anionic Reco-10 (a mixture of rhamnolipids). The experiments were performed with three different soils (sandy clay loam, clay loam, clay) and at two soil/biosurfactant ratios, m/V=1/10 and 1/40. Using a tensiometer, surface tension in aqueous biosurfactant solutions and their supernatants was measured and the critical micelle concentration © UNIVERSITY OF WARMIA AND MAZURY IN OLSZTYN INTRODUCTION Surfactants are amphiphilic compounds (containing hydrophobic and hydrophilic portions) that reduce the free energy of a system by replacing bulk molecules of higher energy at an interface (Mulligan 2005). Due to their ability to lower surface/interfacial tension, and to increase solubility, detergency power, wetting ability and foaming capacity, surfactants have a wide range of applications in many fields, such as the petroleum or pharmaceutical industries. In addition, surfactants monomers aggregate in micelles at a specific concentration, which not only reduces surface and interfacial tension, but also facilitates the desorption of pollutants and increases their bioavailability in soils or sediments. These properties mean that surfactants can be used in many surfactant-enhanced remediation systems like soil washing (Mao et al. 2015; Mulligan 2009), electrokinetic processes (Saichek and Reddy 2005), phytoremediation (Liu et al. 2013) and bioremediation (Pacwa-Plociniczak et al. 2011). Up to now, different ionic (anionic, cationic) and non-ionic surfactants have been tested for soil remediation. Anionic synthetic surfactants that have been tested include sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate sodium (AOT) and linear sodium alkene sulfonates (Spolapon AOS). As a cationic surfactant, cetyltrialkyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) has been used. In contrast to ionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants have lower toxicity and greater capacity to solubilize contaminants, so they are more commonly used in remediation projects than ionic (Zheng et al. 2012). Although ionic surfactants are highly efficient at removing various pollutants 28 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 11 (2) 2015 such as PCBs, petroleum,NAPLs andBTEX, their toxicity can limit their usefulness (Mao et al. 2015). Currently, biosurfactants appear more attractive than synthetic surfactants for surfactant-based soil remediation. Biosurfactants are natural surface active agents produced by bacteria, fungi and yeast, or extracted from plants (Paria 2008). They have a larger molecular structure and more functional groups than synthetic surfactants, which enables them to remove both hydrophobic organics and heavy metals. The biosurfactants commonly used in soil remediation are anionic rhamnolipids secreted by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Juwarkar et al. 2007; Muligan 2009) and non-ionic saponin of plant origin (Hong et al. 2002). Biosurfactants differ in their properties and can behave in soil in different ways. Although biosurfactants have a low environmental impact, and can be left in soil after treatment (Wouter et al. 2004), their adsorption can lower the efficiency of surfactant-based soil remediation. The degree of their adsorption depends primarily on soil properties, i.e. its organic carbon content and cation exchange capacity, and on the chemical nature of the surfactant. Anionic surfactants are generally adsorbed less than nonionic surfactants and much less than cationic surfactants (Lee et al. 2004). As a result of surfactants being adsorbed to soil, the hydrophobicity of the soil can be increased, and previously removed pollutants, especially organic ones, can be re-adsorbed on the soil surface (Paria 2008). In many remediation projects, the biosurfactant concentration is chosen based on the critical micelle concentration (CMC) (Zhang et al. 2011). If the degree of adsorption is great, surfactant concentrations could drop below the CMC and pollutants will not be solubilized (Chu 2003). Therefore, selection of the proper biosurfactant concentration for soil remediation should be preceded by determination of the CMC in the soil-surfactant solution system. To determine biosurfactant adsorption, there are some methods based on the measurement of selected surfactant properties, i.e. surface tension, absorbance or chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Liu et al. 1992). However, methods based on measurement of absorbance or COD can be problematic, because compounds released from the soil can affect the extract color and concentration of organics. As a result, surfactant adsorption may be overestimated. Zhou et al. (2013) confirmed that, after soil sorption experiments, it is difficult to accurately quantify by UV spectrometry the total concentration of Sapindus saponin in aqueous solution. Thus, methods using measurement of surface tension seem to be more adequate. Although the adsorption of various synthetic surfactants has been determined, little is known about biosurfactant adsorption on soil, especially plant-biosurfactants. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the adsorption of two commercially available biosurfactants (saponin and rhamnolipids) at their CMC, using a surface tension technique. The experiments were performed with three soils with different properties and at two ratios of soil to biosurfactant solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS Biosurfactants Two different biosurfactants were used. Chemically-pure saponin (Product No. 16109), a non-ionic plant-derived biosurfactant, was purchased as a powder from RiedeldeHaën, Switzerland. Saponin is an acidic biosurfactant (pH 4.5–5.5) with a density of 1.015-1.020g·mL-1 at 20°C (5% in H2O). It is a mixture of triterpene-glycosides extracted from the bark of the tree Quillaja saponaria, and its hydrophilic part is composed of sugar chains with functional groups. Purum saponin contains 42.3% carbon (C), 6.2% hydrogen (H), 0.2% nitrogen (N), and 51.3% oxygen (O). Reco-10, a 10% mixture of two major rhamnolipids, RLL (R1, C26H48O9) and RRLL (R2, C32H58O13) was purchased from the Jeneil Biosurfactant Co LLC, USA. Chemically, rhamnolipids are glycosides of rhamnose (6-deoxymannose) and p-hydroxydecanoic acid. The rhamnolipids were produced from sterilized and centrifuged fermentation broth. The commercially available product is in the form of a dark brown solution. In contrast to that of saponin, the pH of rhamnolipids ranges from 6 to 7. The chemical structure of both biosurfactants is given in Figure 1. Soils Three soils were collected from different sites in Warmia and Mazury province, Poland: sandy clay loam, SCL-B (Baranowo), clay loam, CL-W (Wanguty) and clay, C-W (Wiktorowo). The soils were air-dried and ground to pass through a 1-mm sieve. The physico-chemical properties of the soils are given in Table 1. Determination of biosurfactant adsorption on soils To determine biosurfactant adsorption on soils, the surface tension of fresh biosurfactant solutions at concentrations from 1 to 10 000mg·L-1 was measured with a Krüss K100 tensiometer employing the Wilhelmy plate method. Then, each biosurfactant solution at a given concentration was shaken with soil (SCL-B, CLW, C-W) at soil/biosurfactant ratios of 1/10 and 1/40 (m/V) on a rotary shaker at 150 rpm for 24h. The supernatants were centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 1h, filtered, and then the surface tension was measured again. The surface tension values were plotted vs. the logarithm of the surfactant concentration. The point of intersection of the two regression lines made on the basis of the experimental data indicates the critical micelle concentration (CMC). The CMC is the lowest aqueous concentration of surfactant at which the surface tension of the solution shows the smallest tensional force (Urum and Pekdemir 2004). The amount of biosurfactant adsorbed on soil at the critical micelle concentration was calculated using the following formula (Zheng and Obbard 2002): Gusiatin Adsorption of biosurfactants to soil 29 Table 1. Physico‐chemical characteristics of the soils.","PeriodicalId":11733,"journal":{"name":"Environmental biotechnology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14799/EBMS267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This study investigated the adsorption of two biosurfactants, non‐ionic saponin and anionic Reco-10 (a mixture of rhamnolipids). The experiments were performed with three different soils (sandy clay loam, clay loam, clay) and at two soil/biosurfactant ratios, m/V=1/10 and 1/40. Using a tensiometer, surface tension in aqueous biosurfactant solutions and their supernatants was measured and the critical micelle concentration © UNIVERSITY OF WARMIA AND MAZURY IN OLSZTYN INTRODUCTION Surfactants are amphiphilic compounds (containing hydrophobic and hydrophilic portions) that reduce the free energy of a system by replacing bulk molecules of higher energy at an interface (Mulligan 2005). Due to their ability to lower surface/interfacial tension, and to increase solubility, detergency power, wetting ability and foaming capacity, surfactants have a wide range of applications in many fields, such as the petroleum or pharmaceutical industries. In addition, surfactants monomers aggregate in micelles at a specific concentration, which not only reduces surface and interfacial tension, but also facilitates the desorption of pollutants and increases their bioavailability in soils or sediments. These properties mean that surfactants can be used in many surfactant-enhanced remediation systems like soil washing (Mao et al. 2015; Mulligan 2009), electrokinetic processes (Saichek and Reddy 2005), phytoremediation (Liu et al. 2013) and bioremediation (Pacwa-Plociniczak et al. 2011). Up to now, different ionic (anionic, cationic) and non-ionic surfactants have been tested for soil remediation. Anionic synthetic surfactants that have been tested include sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate sodium (AOT) and linear sodium alkene sulfonates (Spolapon AOS). As a cationic surfactant, cetyltrialkyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) has been used. In contrast to ionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants have lower toxicity and greater capacity to solubilize contaminants, so they are more commonly used in remediation projects than ionic (Zheng et al. 2012). Although ionic surfactants are highly efficient at removing various pollutants 28 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY 11 (2) 2015 such as PCBs, petroleum,NAPLs andBTEX, their toxicity can limit their usefulness (Mao et al. 2015). Currently, biosurfactants appear more attractive than synthetic surfactants for surfactant-based soil remediation. Biosurfactants are natural surface active agents produced by bacteria, fungi and yeast, or extracted from plants (Paria 2008). They have a larger molecular structure and more functional groups than synthetic surfactants, which enables them to remove both hydrophobic organics and heavy metals. The biosurfactants commonly used in soil remediation are anionic rhamnolipids secreted by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Juwarkar et al. 2007; Muligan 2009) and non-ionic saponin of plant origin (Hong et al. 2002). Biosurfactants differ in their properties and can behave in soil in different ways. Although biosurfactants have a low environmental impact, and can be left in soil after treatment (Wouter et al. 2004), their adsorption can lower the efficiency of surfactant-based soil remediation. The degree of their adsorption depends primarily on soil properties, i.e. its organic carbon content and cation exchange capacity, and on the chemical nature of the surfactant. Anionic surfactants are generally adsorbed less than nonionic surfactants and much less than cationic surfactants (Lee et al. 2004). As a result of surfactants being adsorbed to soil, the hydrophobicity of the soil can be increased, and previously removed pollutants, especially organic ones, can be re-adsorbed on the soil surface (Paria 2008). In many remediation projects, the biosurfactant concentration is chosen based on the critical micelle concentration (CMC) (Zhang et al. 2011). If the degree of adsorption is great, surfactant concentrations could drop below the CMC and pollutants will not be solubilized (Chu 2003). Therefore, selection of the proper biosurfactant concentration for soil remediation should be preceded by determination of the CMC in the soil-surfactant solution system. To determine biosurfactant adsorption, there are some methods based on the measurement of selected surfactant properties, i.e. surface tension, absorbance or chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Liu et al. 1992). However, methods based on measurement of absorbance or COD can be problematic, because compounds released from the soil can affect the extract color and concentration of organics. As a result, surfactant adsorption may be overestimated. Zhou et al. (2013) confirmed that, after soil sorption experiments, it is difficult to accurately quantify by UV spectrometry the total concentration of Sapindus saponin in aqueous solution. Thus, methods using measurement of surface tension seem to be more adequate. Although the adsorption of various synthetic surfactants has been determined, little is known about biosurfactant adsorption on soil, especially plant-biosurfactants. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the adsorption of two commercially available biosurfactants (saponin and rhamnolipids) at their CMC, using a surface tension technique. The experiments were performed with three soils with different properties and at two ratios of soil to biosurfactant solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS Biosurfactants Two different biosurfactants were used. Chemically-pure saponin (Product No. 16109), a non-ionic plant-derived biosurfactant, was purchased as a powder from RiedeldeHaën, Switzerland. Saponin is an acidic biosurfactant (pH 4.5–5.5) with a density of 1.015-1.020g·mL-1 at 20°C (5% in H2O). It is a mixture of triterpene-glycosides extracted from the bark of the tree Quillaja saponaria, and its hydrophilic part is composed of sugar chains with functional groups. Purum saponin contains 42.3% carbon (C), 6.2% hydrogen (H), 0.2% nitrogen (N), and 51.3% oxygen (O). Reco-10, a 10% mixture of two major rhamnolipids, RLL (R1, C26H48O9) and RRLL (R2, C32H58O13) was purchased from the Jeneil Biosurfactant Co LLC, USA. Chemically, rhamnolipids are glycosides of rhamnose (6-deoxymannose) and p-hydroxydecanoic acid. The rhamnolipids were produced from sterilized and centrifuged fermentation broth. The commercially available product is in the form of a dark brown solution. In contrast to that of saponin, the pH of rhamnolipids ranges from 6 to 7. The chemical structure of both biosurfactants is given in Figure 1. Soils Three soils were collected from different sites in Warmia and Mazury province, Poland: sandy clay loam, SCL-B (Baranowo), clay loam, CL-W (Wanguty) and clay, C-W (Wiktorowo). The soils were air-dried and ground to pass through a 1-mm sieve. The physico-chemical properties of the soils are given in Table 1. Determination of biosurfactant adsorption on soils To determine biosurfactant adsorption on soils, the surface tension of fresh biosurfactant solutions at concentrations from 1 to 10 000mg·L-1 was measured with a Krüss K100 tensiometer employing the Wilhelmy plate method. Then, each biosurfactant solution at a given concentration was shaken with soil (SCL-B, CLW, C-W) at soil/biosurfactant ratios of 1/10 and 1/40 (m/V) on a rotary shaker at 150 rpm for 24h. The supernatants were centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 1h, filtered, and then the surface tension was measured again. The surface tension values were plotted vs. the logarithm of the surfactant concentration. The point of intersection of the two regression lines made on the basis of the experimental data indicates the critical micelle concentration (CMC). The CMC is the lowest aqueous concentration of surfactant at which the surface tension of the solution shows the smallest tensional force (Urum and Pekdemir 2004). The amount of biosurfactant adsorbed on soil at the critical micelle concentration was calculated using the following formula (Zheng and Obbard 2002): Gusiatin Adsorption of biosurfactants to soil 29 Table 1. Physico‐chemical characteristics of the soils.
以表面张力技术评价生物表面活性剂在土壤修复中的吸附作用
本研究考察了两种生物表面活性剂——非离子皂素和阴离子recoo -10(鼠李糖脂混合物)的吸附作用。试验在3种不同土壤(砂质粘土壤土、粘土壤土、粘土)和2种土壤/生物表面活性剂比(m/V=1/10和1/40)下进行。使用张力计,测量了生物表面活性剂水溶液及其上清液的表面张力和临界胶束浓度©瓦姆瓦大学和马佐里在OLSZTYN介绍表面活性剂是两亲性化合物(包含疏水和亲水部分),通过取代界面上高能量的大块分子来降低系统的自由能(Mulligan 2005)。由于表面活性剂具有降低表面/界面张力、提高溶解度、清洁能力、润湿能力和发泡能力的能力,因此在石油或制药工业等许多领域有着广泛的应用。此外,表面活性剂单体在特定浓度的胶束中聚集,不仅可以降低表面和界面张力,还可以促进污染物的解吸,提高其在土壤或沉积物中的生物利用度。Mulligan 2009)、电动过程(Saichek and Reddy 2005)、植物修复(Liu et al. 2013)和生物修复(Pacwa-Plociniczak et al. 2011)。迄今为止,已经对不同的离子(阴离子、阳离子)和非离子表面活性剂进行了土壤修复试验。已测试的阴离子合成表面活性剂包括十二烷基硫酸钠(SDS)、双(2-乙基己基)磺基琥珀酸钠(AOT)和线性烯烃磺酸钠(Spolapon AOS)。十六烷基三烷基溴化铵(CTAB)是一种阳离子表面活性剂。与离子表面活性剂相比,非离子表面活性剂毒性更低,对污染物的溶解能力更强,因此在修复项目中比离子表面活性剂更常用(Zheng et al. 2012)。目前,生物表面活性剂比合成表面活性剂在表面活性剂基土壤修复中更具吸引力。生物表面活性剂是由细菌、真菌和酵母产生或从植物中提取的天然表面活性剂(Paria 2008)。它们比合成表面活性剂具有更大的分子结构和更多的官能团,这使它们能够去除疏水有机物和重金属。土壤修复中常用的生物表面活性剂是铜绿假单胞菌分泌的阴离子鼠李糖脂(Juwarkar et al. 2007;Muligan 2009)和植物来源的非离子皂素(Hong et al. 2002)。生物表面活性剂的性质不同,在土壤中表现出不同的特性。虽然生物表面活性剂对环境的影响很小,处理后可以留在土壤中(Wouter et al. 2004),但它们的吸附会降低表面活性剂修复土壤的效率。它们的吸附程度主要取决于土壤性质,即其有机碳含量和阳离子交换能力,以及表面活性剂的化学性质。阴离子表面活性剂的吸附通常比非离子表面活性剂少,比阳离子表面活性剂少得多(Lee et al. 2004)。由于表面活性剂被吸附到土壤上,可以增加土壤的疏水性,并且以前去除的污染物,特别是有机污染物可以重新吸附在土壤表面(Paria 2008)。在许多修复项目中,生物表面活性剂的浓度是基于临界胶束浓度(CMC)来选择的(Zhang et al. 2011)。如果吸附程度很大,表面活性剂浓度会降到CMC以下,污染物不会被溶解(Chu 2003)。因此,在选择适合土壤修复的生物表面活性剂浓度之前,应先测定土壤-表面活性剂溶液体系中的CMC。为了确定生物表面活性剂的吸附,有一些基于测量选定表面活性剂性质的方法,即表面张力、吸光度或化学需氧量(COD) (Liu et al. 1992)。然而,基于吸光度或COD测量的方法可能会有问题,因为从土壤中释放的化合物会影响提取物的颜色和有机物的浓度。因此,表面活性剂的吸附可能被高估了。Zhou et al.(2013)证实,经过土壤吸附实验后,用紫外光谱法难以准确定量地测定水溶液中皂素的总浓度。因此,使用测量表面张力的方法似乎更合适。 虽然各种合成表面活性剂的吸附已经被确定,但对生物表面活性剂在土壤上的吸附,特别是植物生物表面活性剂的吸附却知之甚少。因此,本研究的目的是利用表面张力技术确定两种市售生物表面活性剂(皂素和鼠李糖脂)在其CMC上的吸附。实验在三种不同性质的土壤和两种土壤与生物表面活性剂溶液的比例下进行。材料与方法生物表面活性剂采用两种不同的生物表面活性剂。化学纯皂素(产品号16109),一种非离子型植物源性生物表面活性剂,购自瑞士RiedeldeHaën。皂苷是一种酸性生物表面活性剂(pH为4.5-5.5),在20℃(5% H2O)条件下浓度为1.015-1.020g·mL-1。它是从皂荚树的树皮中提取的三萜苷的混合物,其亲水部分由带官能团的糖链组成。Purum皂苷的碳(C)含量为42.3%,氢(H)含量为6.2%,氮(N)含量为0.2%,氧(O)含量为51.3%。recoo -10为RLL (R1, C26H48O9)和RRLL (R2, C32H58O13)两种主要鼠李糖脂的10%混合物,购自美国Jeneil生物表面活性剂有限责任公司。从化学上讲,鼠李糖脂是鼠李糖(6-脱氧甘露糖)和对羟基癸酸的糖苷。鼠李糖脂是从经过灭菌和离心的发酵液中生产出来的。市售产品为深棕色溶液。与皂苷相比,鼠李糖脂的pH值在6 ~ 7之间。两种生物表面活性剂的化学结构如图1所示。从波兰瓦姆尼亚和马祖里省不同地点采集了3种土壤:砂质粘土壤土SCL-B (Baranowo)、粘土壤土CL-W (wangty)和粘土C-W (Wiktorowo)。土壤被风干并磨碎,通过1毫米的筛子。土壤的理化性质如表1所示。为了测定生物表面活性剂在土壤上的吸附,用kr<s:1> ss K100型张力计,采用威廉平板法测定了浓度为1 ~ 10 000mg·L-1的新鲜生物表面活性剂溶液的表面张力。然后,每种给定浓度的生物表面活性剂溶液与土壤(SCL-B, CLW, C-W)在旋转振动筛上以土壤/生物表面活性剂比为1/10和1/40 (m/V)在150 rpm下振荡24小时。上清液8000 rpm离心1h,过滤后再次测定表面张力。绘制表面张力值与表面活性剂浓度的对数关系图。根据实验数据求得的两条回归线的交点即为临界胶束浓度。CMC是表面活性剂的最低水溶液浓度,溶液的表面张力显示出最小的张力(Urum和Pekdemir 2004)。在临界胶束浓度下,生物表面活性剂吸附在土壤上的量采用下式计算(Zheng and Obbard 2002):土壤的物理化学特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信