| Literature DB >> 36136497 |
Cheng Li1,2, Chunjing Liu1,3, Rongzhen Li1,3, Yue Liu1,3, Jianzhi Xie1,3, Bowen Li1,3.
Abstract
Optimizing the culture conditions of DBP degradation by bacteria and investigating its biodegradation pathways have a great importance to develop effective PAEs pollution control strategies. In this study, we investigated the cultivation condition optimization, degradation kinetics, and degradation pathways of a newly isolated dibutyl phthalate (DBP) degradation strain, which was isolated from activated sludge and identified as Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 via morphological observation, biochemical identification, and 16S rDNA sequence analysis. The degradation conditions were optimized based on the results of single-factor experiments and response surface optimization experiments. The DBP degradation rate of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 reached up to 85.86% when the inoculation amount was 17.14%, the DBP concentration was 9.81 mg·L-1 and the NaCl concentration was 5 g·L-1. The GC-MS analysis results indicated that the intermediate metabolites of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 mainly consisted of DMP, MBP, PA, and benzoic acid derivatives, which confirmed the degradation pathway from DBP to PA under aerobic pathway and then to BA under anaerobic pathway. In summary, Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 shows great potential for the degradation of DBP in contaminated soils.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradation; degradation pathway; dibutyl phthalate; response surface analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36136497 PMCID: PMC9505308 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10090532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Box-Behnken design factor level.
| Factor | Code | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| NaCl concentration (g·L−1) | A | 5 | 10 | 20 |
| Inoculum (%) | B | 10 | 15 | 20 |
| Initial DBP concentration (mg·L−1) | C | 5 | 10 | 20 |
Physiological and biochemical characteristics of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2.
| Physiological and Biochemical Indexes | Test Results | Physiological and Biochemical Indexes | Test Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose fermentation (acid production) | + | Hydrogen peroxide | + |
| Glucose fermentation (gas production) | − | ||
| Fructose fermentation (acid production) | + | Nitrate reduction | − |
| Oxidase | − | Urease | − |
| Sucrose fermentation | + | Methyl red experiment | + |
| Mannose fermentation | + | Acetyl methanol test | − |
| Mannitol fermentation | + | Xylose fermentation | − |
| Hydrogen sulfide production | − | Gelatin liquefaction | − |
| Lactose fermentation | − | Tween 80 | − |
| Arabinose fermentation | − | Starch hydrolysis | + |
| Gossypose fermentation | − | Indole experiment | − |
| Inositol | − | Citrate utilization | + |
“+”: Positive reaction; “−”: Negative reaction.
Figure 1SEM images of strain Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 at (A) 2.5KX and (B) 4.0KX.
Figure 2Phylogenetic tree of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 based on 16S rDNA sequences.
Figure 3The DBP biodegradation rate of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 with different (A) inoculum amounts, (B) substrate concentrations, and (C) NaCl concentration.
The degradation optimization of DP-2 based on Box-Behnken experiments.
| No. | A (Inoculum Amount) | B (Initial DBP Concentration) | C (NaCl Concentration) | Degradation Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 66.78 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 62.23 |
| 3 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 64.05 |
| 4 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 60.11 |
| 5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 83.64 |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 64.48 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 74.43 |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 54.83 |
| 9 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 86.23 |
| 10 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 85.36 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 66.87 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 68.73 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73.66 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75.23 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72.97 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73.56 |
| 17 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 64.22 |
ANOVA analysis for the response surface quadratic model of DBP degradation.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square Error | F-Value | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1189.37 | 9 | 132.15 | 7.93 | 0.0062 | * |
| A-salinity | 535.63 | 1 | 535.63 | 32.16 | 0.0008 | ** |
| B-inoculum | 9.99 | 1 | 9.99 | 0.60 | 0.4640 | |
| C-substrate concentration | 223.03 | 1 | 223.03 | 13.39 | 0.0081 | * |
| AB | 0.046 | 1 | 0.046 | 2.775 × 10−3 | 0.9595 | |
| AC | 8.09 | 1 | 8.09 | 0.49 | 0.5082 | |
| BC | 0.070 | 1 | 0.070 | 4.216 × 10−3 | 0.9500 | |
| A2 | 43.76 | 1 | 43.76 | 2.63 | 0.1491 | |
| B2 | 6.38 | 1 | 6.38 | 0.38 | 0.5555 | |
| C2 | 370.56 | 1 | 370.56 | 22.25 | 0.0022 | ** |
| Residual error | 116.60 | 7 | 16.66 | |||
| Lack of fit items | 113.53 | 3 | 37.84 | 49.42 | 0.1013 | |
| Pure error | 3.06 | 4 | 0.77 | |||
| Total error | 1305.96 | 16 |
Note: * means statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.05); ** means statistically significant at the 99.95% confidence level (p < 0.005).
Figure 4Response surface graph on the DBP degradation rate of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2.
Degradation kinetics equations of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 at different initial DBP concentrations.
| Initial Concentration | Kinetic Equation | Kinetic Parameter ( | t1/2/h | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | ln | 0.0193 | 15.91 | 0.9927 |
| 10 | ln | 0.0277 | 25.02 | 0.9869 |
| 20 | ln | 0.0191 | 36.28 | 0.9856 |
| 50 | ln | 0.0187 | 37.06 | 0.9631 |
| 100 | ln | 0.0115 | 60.26 | 0.9641 |
Figure 5The proposed DBP biodegradation pathways of Acinetobacter baumannii DP-2 on the basis of metabolite analysis by GC-MS.