Rapid methods to assess the effects of chemicals on microbial activity in soil

S. D. Haigh, A. Rennie
{"title":"Rapid methods to assess the effects of chemicals on microbial activity in soil","authors":"S. D. Haigh, A. Rennie","doi":"10.1002/TOX.2530090415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fluorescein diacetate (FDA) hydrolysis and an automated bacterial impedance technique (RABIT) were compared to the Pseudomonas putida growth inhibition assay (PGI) to assess their suitability as rapid methods to screen for effects of chemicals on soil microbial activity. \n \n \n \nRABIT was rapid, was the simplest, and was most convenient of the three methods to perform, but it was an order of magnitude less sensitive to toxicity than FDA or PGI. Further modification of the method may result in a most useful tool for screening purposes. \n \n \n \nThe FDA hydrolysis method was both simple and rapid to perform. It gave comparable results to the PGI method for 3,5-dichlorophenol and an amphoteric surfactant, but FDA was an order of magnitude more sensitive to the anionic and nonionic and an order of magnitude less sensitive to the cationic surfactants tested. This apparent conflict emphasizes that the toxicity assessment of a chemical in the environment should not rely entirely on inherent toxicity tests. For terrestrial toxicity testing, interactions between chemical and soil should be taken into account in order to predict correctly the chemical's impact on the environment. For example, adsorption of cationics onto soil particles results in significantly higher concentrations of the chemical being needed in vivo to cause a toxic effect than that predicted by inherent toxicity tests. \n \n \n \nThe use of soil suspensions in the FDA assay, rather than pure cultures of microorganisms, is a more realistic, but still indirect, test of a chemical's toxicity in soil. When the assay is calibrated against a standard method, such as PGI using uncharged reference chemicals, this method can provide a simple and rapid tool to assess the relative effects of chemicals on soil microbial activity. © 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc..","PeriodicalId":11824,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Toxicology & Water Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Toxicology & Water Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/TOX.2530090415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Fluorescein diacetate (FDA) hydrolysis and an automated bacterial impedance technique (RABIT) were compared to the Pseudomonas putida growth inhibition assay (PGI) to assess their suitability as rapid methods to screen for effects of chemicals on soil microbial activity. RABIT was rapid, was the simplest, and was most convenient of the three methods to perform, but it was an order of magnitude less sensitive to toxicity than FDA or PGI. Further modification of the method may result in a most useful tool for screening purposes. The FDA hydrolysis method was both simple and rapid to perform. It gave comparable results to the PGI method for 3,5-dichlorophenol and an amphoteric surfactant, but FDA was an order of magnitude more sensitive to the anionic and nonionic and an order of magnitude less sensitive to the cationic surfactants tested. This apparent conflict emphasizes that the toxicity assessment of a chemical in the environment should not rely entirely on inherent toxicity tests. For terrestrial toxicity testing, interactions between chemical and soil should be taken into account in order to predict correctly the chemical's impact on the environment. For example, adsorption of cationics onto soil particles results in significantly higher concentrations of the chemical being needed in vivo to cause a toxic effect than that predicted by inherent toxicity tests. The use of soil suspensions in the FDA assay, rather than pure cultures of microorganisms, is a more realistic, but still indirect, test of a chemical's toxicity in soil. When the assay is calibrated against a standard method, such as PGI using uncharged reference chemicals, this method can provide a simple and rapid tool to assess the relative effects of chemicals on soil microbial activity. © 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
评价化学药品对土壤微生物活性影响的快速方法
将双醋酸荧光素(FDA)水解和自动细菌阻抗技术(RABIT)与恶臭假单胞菌生长抑制试验(PGI)进行比较,以评估它们作为筛选化学物质对土壤微生物活性影响的快速方法的适用性。RABIT是三种方法中快速、最简单、最方便的方法,但对毒性的敏感性比FDA或PGI低一个数量级。该方法的进一步修改可能会产生用于筛选目的的最有用的工具。FDA水解法简便、快速。该方法对3,5-二氯酚和两性表面活性剂的测定结果与PGI方法相当,但FDA对阴离子和非离子表面活性剂的敏感性要高一个数量级,而对阳离子表面活性剂的敏感性要低一个数量级。这种明显的冲突强调,对环境中化学品的毒性评估不应完全依靠内在毒性试验。对于陆地毒性试验,应考虑到化学品与土壤之间的相互作用,以便正确预测化学品对环境的影响。例如,阳离子在土壤颗粒上的吸附会导致体内产生毒性效应所需的化学物质浓度明显高于固有毒性试验所预测的浓度。在FDA试验中使用土壤悬浮液,而不是纯微生物培养物,是一种更现实的方法,但仍然是间接的,测试化学物质在土壤中的毒性。当该分析与标准方法(如PGI)进行校准时,该方法可以提供一种简单快速的工具来评估化学物质对土壤微生物活性的相对影响。©1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.。
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