| Literature DB >> 31963268 |
Edward A Barber1, Ziyi Liu1, Stephen R Smith1.
Abstract
Organic contaminants (OCs), such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, and plasticisers, are societally ubiquitous, environmentally hazardous, and structurally diverse chemical compounds whose recalcitrance to conventional wastewater treatment necessitates the development of more effective remedial alternatives. The engineered application of ligninolytic oxidoreductase fungal enzymes, principally white-rot laccase, lignin peroxidase, and manganese peroxidase, has been identified as a particularly promising approach for OC remediation due to their strong oxidative power, broad substrate specificity, low energy consumption, environmental benignity, and cultivability from lignocellulosic waste. By applying an understanding of the mechanisms by which substrate properties influence enzyme activity, a set of semi-quantitative physicochemical criteria (redox potential, hydrophobicity, steric bulk and pKa) was formulated, against which the oxidoreductase degradation susceptibility of twenty-five representative OCs was assessed. Ionisable, compact, and electron donating group (EDG) rich pharmaceuticals and antibiotics were judged the most susceptible, whilst hydrophilic, bulky, and electron withdrawing group (EWG) rich polyhalogenated compounds were judged the least susceptible. OC susceptibility scores were in general agreement with the removal rates reported for experimental oxidoreductase treatments (R2 = 0.60). Based on this fundamental knowledge, and recent developments in enzyme immobilisation techniques, microbiological enzymic treatment strategies are proposed to formulate a new generation of biological wastewater treatment processes for the biodegradation of environmentally challenging OC compounds.Entities:
Keywords: enzymatic degradation; organic contaminant; oxidoreductase enzymes; redox potential
Year: 2020 PMID: 31963268 PMCID: PMC7022594 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8010122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Shortlisted chemicals and their abbreviations.
| Chemical | Abbreviation | Chemical | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sulfamethoxazole | SMX | Triclosan | TRC |
| Erythromycin | ERY | 3,3′,4,4′,5,5′,6,6′-decabromodiphenyl ether | BDE-209 |
| Tetracycline | TET | Pentabromoethylbenzene | PBEB |
| Ofloxacin | OFL | Tris(1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate | TDCPP |
| Trimethoprim | TMP | Diethylhexyl phthalate | DEHP |
| Diclofenac | DCF | 2-Hydroxybenzothiazole | OBT |
| Carbamazepine | CBZ | Tributyltin | TBT |
| Metoprolol | MTP | Perfluorooctanoic acid | PFOA |
| Gemfibrozil | GMF | Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | PFOS |
| Benzophenone-3 | BZP | Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin | TCDD |
| Fluoxetine | FLX | 2,3,6,7-Pentachloronaphthalene | 2,3,6,7-PCN |
| Oestrone | OST | 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodecane | CP-10 |
| Galaxolide | GLX |
Electron donating/withdrawing strength and steric bulk of shortlisted organic contaminant (OC) substituents.
| Substituent | Electron Donating/Withdrawing Strength 1 | Steric Bulk 2 |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| -OH (hydroxyl) | Strong | Low |
| -R (Alkyl) | Medium | Medium (<3 C), high (≥3 C) * |
| -NH2, -NHR, -NR2 (amine) | Strong | Medium |
| -ROR (ether) | Medium | Low |
| -SCH3 | Weak | Low |
|
| ||
| -COOH (carboxyl) | Medium | Medium |
| -C6H5 (phenyl) | Weak | High |
| -F, -Br, -Cl (Halogen) | Medium | Low |
| -CONH2, -CONHR, -CONR2 (amide) | Strong | Medium |
| -COOR (ester) | Medium | Medium |
| -COR (acyl) | Medium | Medium |
| -SO2OH | Medium | Unknown |
| -SO2NHR | Strong | Unknown |
1 source: [30]; 2 source: [31,32]; * refers to the number of carbon of the substituent.
Representative OCs shortlisted for susceptibility assessment and their respective assessment criteria data.
| Organic Contaminant | Chemical Formula | Chemical Structure ℇ | Molecular Weight (g/mol) | EDG Score | EWG Score | Net Electron Donating Group Density | pKa | Log Kow | Steric Bulk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sulfamethoxazole | C10H11N3O3S |
| 253.28 | 5 | 3 | 0.79 | 5.81 1 | 0.89 2 | Medium |
| Erythromycin | C37H67NO13 |
| 733.93 | 19 | 4 | 2.04 | 8.90 3 | 3.10 3 | Medium |
| Tetracycline | C22H24N2O8 |
| 444.43 | 13 | 6 | 1.58 | 9.69 4 | −1.33 5 | Medium |
| Ofloxacin | C18H20FN3O4 |
| 361.37 | 8 | 6 | 0.55 | 7.65 6 | 0.00 5 | Low |
| Trimethoprim | C14H18N4O3 |
| 290.32 | 12 | 0 | 4.13 | 7.20 7 | 0.91 2 | Medium |
| Diclofenac | C14H11Cl2NO2 |
| 296.15 | 3 | 6 | −1.01 | 4.20 2 | 0.70 2 | Medium |
| Carbamazepine | C15H12N2O |
| 236.27 | 0 | 2 | -0.85 | 13.9 8 | 2.25 5 | Medium |
| Metoprolol | C15H25NO3 |
| 267.36 | 11 | 0 | 4.11 | 9.60 2 | 2.15 2 | High |
| Gemfibrozil | C15H22O3 |
| 250.33 | 8 | 2 | 2.40 | 4.70 2 | 4.77 2 | High |
| Benzophenone-3 | C14H12O3 |
| 228.24 | 5 | 3 | 0.88 | 7.10 | 3.79 9 | Medium |
| Fluoxetine | C17H18F3NO |
| 309.33 | 5 | 3 | 0.65 | 8.70 10 | 4.05 10 | High |
| Oestrone | C18H22O2 |
| 270.37 | 3 | 2 | 0.74 | 10.34 2 | 3.13 2 | Low |
| Galaxolide | C18H26O |
| 258.40 | 12 | 0 | 4.64 | / | 5.90 11 | Medium |
| Triclosan | C12H7Cl3O2 |
| 289.54 | 5 | 6 | −0.35 | 7.80 10 | 4.76 10 | Low |
| BDE-209 | C12Br10O |
| 959.17 | 2 | 20 | −1.88 | / | 12.11 12 | Low |
| PBEB | C8H5Br5 |
| 500.65 | 2 | 10 | −1.60 | / | / | Medium |
| TDCPP | C9H15Cl6O4P |
| 430.90 | / | / | / | / | 3.76 9 | High |
| DEHP | C24H38O4 |
| 390.56 | 8 | 4 | 1.02 | / | 7.60 12 | High |
| OBT | C7H5NOS |
| 151.19 | 0 | 2 | −1.32 | / | 1.76 11 | Medium |
| TBT | C12H27Sn |
| 290.05 | / | / | / | / | 3.52 11 | High |
| PFOA | C8HF15O2 |
| 414.07 | / | / | / | 1.30 13 | 4.81 9 | Medium |
| PFOS | C8F17O3S |
| 499.12 | / | / | / | −3.3 9 | 4.49 9 | Medium |
| TCDD | C12H4Cl4O2 |
| 321.97 | 4 | 8 | −1.24 | / | 6.80 9 | Low |
| 2,3,6,7-PCN | C10H4Cl4 |
| 265.95 | 0 | 8 | -3.01 | / | 6.19 9 | Low |
| CP-10 | C10H16Cl6 |
| 348.98 | / | / | / | / | / | Medium |
1 source: [57], 2 source: [58], 3 source: [59], 4 source: [60], 5 source: [61], 6 source: [62], 7 source: [63] 8 source: [29], 9 source: [64], 10 source: [65], 11 source: [66], 12 source: [67], 13 source: [68].
Figure 1Shortlisted OCs in order of their assessed susceptibility to oxidoreductase degradation. The breakdown of individual criteria scores is represented by patterned bars.
Figure 2Correlation between total OC susceptibility scores and reported oxidoreductase treatment strategy removal rates (abbreviations were defined in Table 1).