Denitrification in aqueous Fe(II)EDTA solutions
The biological reduction of nitric oxide (NO) in aqueous solutions of FeEDTA is an important key reaction within the BioDeNOx process, a combined physico-chemical and biological technique for the removal of NOx from industrial flue gasses. To explore the reduction of nitrogen oxide analogues, this study investigated the full denitrification pathway in aqueous FeEDTA solutions, ie the reduction of NO3−, NO2−, NO via N2O to N2 in this unusual medium. This was done in batch experiments at 30 °C with 25 mmol dm−3 FeEDTA solutions (pH 7.2 ± 0.2). Also Ca2+ (2 and 10 mmol dm−3) and Mg2+ (2 mmol dm−3) were added in excess to prevent free, uncomplexed EDTA. Nitrate reduction in aqueous solutions of Fe(III)EDTA is accompanied by the biological reduction of Fe(III) to Fe(II), for which ethanol, methanol and also acetate are suitable electron donors. Fe(II)EDTA can serve as electron donor for the biological reduction of nitrate to nitrite, with the concomitant oxidation of Fe(II)EDTA to Fe(III)EDTA. Moreover, Fe(II)EDTA can also serve as electron donor for the chemical reduction of nitrite to NO, with the concomitant formation of the nitrosyl-complex Fe(II)EDTA–NO. The reduction of NO in Fe(II)EDTA was found to be catalysed biologically and occurred about three times faster at 55 °C than NO reduction at 30 °C. This study showed that the nitrogen and iron cycles are strongly coupled and that FeEDTA has an electron-mediating role during the subsequent reduction of nitrate, nitrite, nitric oxide and nitrous oxide to dinitrogen gas. Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry
Available from: Andreas Kappler
- "As part of their studies, they presented evidence that Fe(II)-EDTA is not oxidized abiotically by nitrite and therefore concluded that all oxidized Fe(II) must originate from direct enzymatic activity. However, the absence of Fe(II)-EDTA oxidation by nitrite in their work differed from the results of other studies that have shown chemical oxidation of Fe(II)-EDTA by nitrite and NO (Zang et al., 1988; Van Der Maas et al., 2004; Kumaraswamy et al., 2006). It should be noted that some of these other studies measured Fe(II) concentrations with ferrozine as the colorimetric agent (Stookey, 1970) to follow Fe(II)-EDTA oxidation, while others used phenanthroline as the colorimetric complexant (Tamura et al., 1974). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The enzymatic oxidation of Fe(II) by nitrate-reducing bacteria was first suggested about two decades ago. It has since been found that most strains are mixotrophic and need an additional organic co-substrate for complete and prolonged Fe(II) oxidation. Research during the last few years has tried to determine to what extent the observed Fe(II) oxidation is driven enzymatically, or abiotically by nitrite produced during heterotrophic denitrification. A recent study reported that nitrite was not able to oxidize Fe(II)-EDTA abiotically, but the addition of the mixotrophic nitrate-reducing Fe(II)-oxidizer, Acidovorax sp. strain 2AN, led to Fe(II) oxidation (Chakraborty & Picardal, 2013). This, along with other results of that study, was used to argue that Fe(II) oxidation in strain 2AN was enzymatically catalyzed. However, the absence of abiotic Fe(II)-EDTA oxidation by nitrite reported in that study contrasts with previously published data. We have repeated the abiotic and biotic experiments and observed rapid abiotic oxidation of Fe(II)-EDTA by nitrite, resulting in the formation of Fe(III)-EDTA and the green Fe(II)-EDTA-NO complex. Additionally, we found that cultivating the Acidovorax strains BoFeN1 and 2AN with 10 mm nitrate, 5 mm acetate, and approximately 10 mm Fe(II)-EDTA resulted only in incomplete Fe(II)-EDTA oxidation of 47-71%. Cultures of strain BoFeN1 turned green (due to the presence of Fe(II)-EDTA-NO) and the green color persisted over the course of the experiments, whereas strain 2AN was able to further oxidize the Fe(II)-EDTA-NO complex. Our work shows that the two used Acidovorax strains behave very differently in their ability to deal with toxic effects of Fe-EDTA species and the further reduction of the Fe(II)-EDTA-NO nitrosyl complex. Although the enzymatic oxidation of Fe(II) cannot be ruled out, this study underlines the importance of nitrite in nitrate-reducing Fe(II)- and Fe(II)-EDTA-oxidizing cultures and demonstrates that Fe(II)-EDTA cannot be used to demonstrate unequivocally the enzymatic oxidation of Fe(II) by mixotrophic Fe(II)-oxidizers.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Available from: Rajkumari Kumaraswamy
- "However, the chemical control with nitrite/ [Fe(II)EDTA] 2À clearly gave a spontaneous reaction, forming [Fe(II)EDTA Á NO] 2À complex. A similar reaction was observed by Maas et al.  in their study of nitrite dependent [Fe(II)EDTA] 2À oxidation with mixed cultures. Previous studies on denitrificationdependent iron oxidation by Straub et al.  and Benz et al.  also had discussed how nitrite might chemically react with ferrous iron (ferrous iron was supplied as ferrous sulfate in bicarbonate buffered medium in these studies) in the absence of cells. "
Available from: dss.go.th
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) of environmental concern are nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). They are hazardous air pollutants that lead to the formation of acid rain and tropospheric ozone. Both pollutants are usually present simultaneously and are, therefore, called NOx. Another compound is N2O which is found in the stratosphere where it plays a role in the greenhouse effect. Concern for environmental and health issues coupled with stringent NOx emission standards generates a need for the development of efficient low-cost NOx abatement technologies. Under such circumstances, it becomes mandatory for each NOx-emitting industry or facility to opt for proper NOx control measures. Several techniques are available to control NOx emissions: selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), adsorption, scrubbing, and biological methods. Each process offers specific advantages and limitations. Since bioprocesses present many advantages over conventional technologies for flue gas cleaning, a lot of interest has recently been shown for these processes. This article reviews the major characteristics of conventional non-biological technologies and recent advances in the biological removal of NOx from flue gases based on the catalytic activity of either eucaryotes or procaryotes, ie nitrification, denitrification, the use of microalgae, and a combined physicochemical and biological process (BioDeNOx). Relatively uncomplicated design and simple operation and maintenance requirements make biological removal a good option for the control of NOx emissions in stationary sources. Copyright © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.