Novel standard biodegradation test for synthetic phosphonates

Determination of biodegradation of synthetic phosphonates such as aminotris(methylenephosphonic acid) (ATMP), ethylenediamine tetra(methylenephosphonic acid) (EDTMP), or diethylenetriamine penta(methylenephosphonic acid) (DTPMP) is a great challenge. Commonly, ready biodegradability of organic substances is assessed by OECD 301 standard tests. However, due to the chemical imbalance of carbon to phosphorus synthetic phosphonates do not promote microbial growth and, thus, limiting its biodegradation. Therefore, standard OECD test methods are not always reliable to predict the real biodegradability of phosphonates. In the presented study, we report the development of a standardized batch system suitable to synthetic phosphonates such as ATMP, EDTMP, DTPMP and others. The novel standard batch test is applicable with pure strains, activated sludge from different wastewater treatment plants (i.e., municipal and industrial), and with tap water as inoculum. We optimized the required calcium and magnesium exposure levels as well as the amount of the start inoculum biomass. We demonstrated that our test also allows to determine several parameters including ortho-phosphate (o-PO43-), total phosphorus (TP), ammonium (NH4+) and total organic carbon (TOC). In addition, also LC/MS analyses of cell-free medium is applicable for determining the mother compounds and metabolites. We applied our optimized standardized batch with selected phosphonates and evidenced that the chemical structure has a major influence of the microbial growth rates. Thus, our novel batch test overcomes drawbacks of the OECD 301 test series for determination of easy biodegradability for stoichiometric imbalanced organic compounds such as phosphonates.

Data on DNA gel sample load, gel electrophoresis, PCR and cost analysis

The data presented in this article provide supporting information to the related research article "Comparison of ten different DNA extraction procedures with respect to their suitability for environmental samples" (Kuhn et al., 2017) [1]. In that article, we compared the suitability of ten selected DNA extraction methods based on DNA quality, purity, quantity and applicability to universal PCR. Here we provide the data on the specific DNA gel sample load, all unreported gel images of crude DNA and PCR results, and the complete cost analysis for all tested extraction procedures and in addition two commercial DNA extraction kits for soil and water.

Comparison of ten different DNA extraction procedures with respect to their suitability for environmental samples

DNA extraction for molecular biological applications usually requires target optimized extraction procedures depending on the origin of the samples. For environmental samples, a range of different procedures has been developed. We compared the applicability and efficiency of ten selected DNA extraction methods published in recent literature using four different environmental samples namely: activated sludge from a domestic wastewater treatment plant, river sediment, anaerobic digestion sludge and nitrifying enrichment culture. We assessed the suitability of the extraction procedures based on both DNA yield and quality. DNA quantification was performed by both ultra violet (UV) spectrophotometry and fluorescence spectrophotometry after staining with PicoGreen. In our study, DNA yields based on UV measurement were overestimated in most cases while DNA yields from fluorescence measurements correlated well with the sample load on agarose gels of crude DNA. The quality of the DNA extracts was determined by gel electrophoresis of crude DNA and PCR products from 16S rDNA with the universal primer set 27f/1525r. It was observed that gel electrophoresis of crude DNA was not always suitable to evaluate DNA integrity and purity since interfering background substances (e.g. humic substances) were not visible. Therefore, we strongly recommend examining the DNA quality of both crude DNA and 16S rDNA PCR products by gel electrophoresis when a new extraction method is established. Summarizing, we found four out of ten extraction procedures being applicable to all tested samples without noticeable restrictions. The procedure G (according to the standard method 432_10401 of the Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) had the broadest application range over procedure J (published by Wilson, 2001). These were followed by procedures F (Singka et al., 2012) and A (Bourrain et al., 1999). All four extraction procedures delivered reliable and reproducible crude DNA and PCR products. From an economical point of view, all procedures tested during this study were cheaper compared to commercial DNA extraction kits.