بررسی پتانسیل کاربرد نانو ذره نانوپروسیل-1((lus-1 به عنوان حامل باکتری حل کننده فسفات در فرایند تولید زادمایه نانوبیولوژیک

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مدانشجوی سابق کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشیار دانشگاه تهران

3 استادیار دانشگاه تهران

10.22092/sbj.2014.128409

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی توانایی ماندگاری باکتری سودوموناس فلورسنس به عنوان یکی از باکتری­های حل کننده فسفات بر روی نانوپروسیل-1(lus-1، نانوذرات سیلیسی) به عنوان حامل باکتری در تولید زادمایه نانوبیولوژیک بود. تیمارهای حامل مورد بررسی شامل: نانوپروسیل-1، ورمی­کمپوست، بنتونیت، خاک فسفات، و فرمولاسیون­های متفاوت از این مواد بود. بعد از تلقیح مواد حامل با باکتری سودوموناس فلورسنس زادمایه­ها ابتدا به مدت 15 روز در انکوباسیون (دمای 28 درجه سانتیگراد) و سپس در دمای 4 درجه سانتیگراد به مدت 180 روز نگهداری شدند. جمعیت باکتری­ها به روش کشت مستقیم در پلیت بر حسب CFU g -1 در زمان های 0، 15، 30، 60، 90 ، 120 ،150 و 180 روز شمارش شد. نتایج پس از 15 روز انکوباسیون نشان دهنده کاهش تعداد باکتری به جزء تیمار حامل ورمی کمپوست بود. به طوری که کمترین جمعیت را تیمار نانوپروسیل-1 به تنهایی و تیمار ترکیبی (نانوپروسیل-1+ بنتونیت+ خاک فسفات) با جمعیت صفر و بیشترین جمعیت را تیمار ورمی­کمپوست با جمعیت 107×77/7 دارا بودند. در پایان دوره نگهداری، جمعیت تیمارهای ترکیبی حاوی نانوذره  lus-1 (نانوپروسیل-1+ ورمی­کمپوست+ بنتونیت و نانوپروسیل-1+ ورمی­کمپوست+ بنتونیت+ خاک فسفات) نسبت به ورمی­کمپوست با جمعیت (107×42/2) نسبتاً فزونی یافته و به ترتیب با 107×45/6 و 107×19/4  بیشترین جمعیت را دارا بودند. نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد، استفاده از نانوپروسیل-1 به تنهایی احتمالاً بدلیل pH و قابلیت هدایت الکتریکی بالا و موارد ناشناخته دیگر برای کاربرد به عنوان حامل باکتری مناسب نیست، ولی استفاده از این حامل به صورت مخلوط با حامل­های دیگر به دلیل اثر تعدیل کنندگی سایر مواد، به عنوان حامل باکتری می­تواند پیشرفتی نو در تولید زادمایه­های نانو بیولوژیک باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Potential of Nanoparticle Nanoprosil-1 as the Carrier of Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria in Nanobiologic Inoculants Production Process

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shayan Shariati 1
  • Hosseinali Alikhani 2
  • Ahmad Ali Pourbabaee 3
1 Former MSc. Student, University of Tehran
2 Associate Professor, University of Tehran
3 Assistant Professor, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study was to determine the capability of bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescence survival as one of phosphate solubilizing bacteria on nanoprosil-1 as a bacterial carrier in nano-biologic inoculant production. The examined carrier treatments were nanoprosil-1, vermicompost, bentonite, rock phosphate and their different mixtures. After inoculation of carriers by Pseudomonas fluorescence bacteria, inoculants were incubated at 28Ċ for 15days and then preserved at 4 Ċ for 180 days. Bacteria populations were measured at times 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 day by CFU method. The results of 15- day incubation showed decrease of bacteria population except for vermicompost treatment. The least count (about zero) was observed in nanoprosil-1 and in the combined treatment (nanoprosil-1 + bentonite + rock phosphate) , and the highest population   of  7.77×107 CFU was measured  in the vermicompost  treatment. At the end of maintenance period,  population of the combined treatments containing nanoprosil-1 (vermicopmost+bentonite+ nanoprosil-1 and nanoprosil-1+ bentonite+ vermicompost+ rock phosphate) increased in comparison to vermicompost (2.42×107) and showed the highest populations of 6.45×107 and 4.19×107, respectively. Based on the results of this study, the application of  nanoprosil-1 alone as bacterial carrier  was not appropriate  probably because of high pH and EC and other undefined factors.  Using of  nanoprosil-1 mixed  with other carriers due to their moderating effect  can be a novel progress in nano-biologic inoculants production.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Bentonite
  • Nanoparticle
  • Pseudomonas fluorescence
  • Rock phosphate
  • Vermicompost

مراجع

  1. Alimirza, M., Mirhosseini, H. and Moezardalaln, V. M. 2007. The survey on trend of nitrogen release from different nitrogen fertilizer sources in incubation studies. The proceedings of 10th soil Sciences Congress. Karaj. Iran 674-675.
  2. Bonneviot, L., Morin, M. and Badie, A. 2003.US 0133868. (US Patent).
  3. Besharati, H., Saleh rastin, N., Malakouti, M. and Alizade, A. 2004.The investigation on viability potential of Thiobacillus on several kinds of carriers. The journal of soil and water sciences 18 (2):170-181.
  4. Brar, S. K., Verma, M., Tyagi, R. D. and R. Y. Surampalli. Engineered nanoparticles in wastewater and wastewater sludge – Evidence and impacts. Waste Management 30:504-520.
  5. Carter, M.R. and Gregorich, E.G. 2008. P.1224. In: Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd (ed). Canadian Society of Soil Science.
  6. Cigdem, K., and Merih, K. 2005. Effect of formulation on the viability of biocontrol agent, Trichoderma harzianum African Journal of Biotechnology. 85: 483–486.
  7. Cui, H., Sun, C., Liu, Q., Jiang, J. and Gu, W. 2006. p. 1-6. In: Applications of Nanotechnology inAgrochemical Formulation, Perspectives, Challenges and Strategies. Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture. 2006 .Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Beijing. China.
  8. Dearmon, I. A., Orlando, M.D., Rosenwald, A.J., Albert, F.K., Ralph, L.F. and Paul R.M. 1962. Viability and estimation of shelf-life of bacterial populations. Journal of Applied Microbiology 10: 422–427.
  9. DeRosa, M.R., Monreal, C., Schnitzer, M., Walsh, R. and Sultan, Y. 2010. Nanotechnology in fertilizers. Nature Nanotechnol 5:91.
  10. Ge, Y., Schimel, J. P. and Holden, P. A. 2011. Evidence for Negative Effects of TiO2 and ZnO Nanoparticles on Soil Bacterial Communities. Environmental science technology 55:1659-1664.
  11. Griffith, G. and Roughly, A.1992. The effect of moisture potential on growth and survival of root nodule, bacteria in peat culture and on seed. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 73: 7-13.
  12. Holland, L. M., Cury, G. C., Periera, R. F., Ferreira, G. A., Sousa, A., Souse, E. M. and Lancellotti, M. 2011. Effect of mesoporous silica under Neisseria meningitides transformation process: Enviromental effects under meningococci transformation. Journal of nanobiotechnology 9: 28.
  13. Hopkins, B.G. and Ellsworth, J.W. 2005. Trace metal toxicity from manure in Idaho: Emphasis on copper. P. In K. Copeland et al. (ed) Proc. Winter Commodity Schools. Univ Idaho Coop Ext Moscow 37:1-36.
  14. Kaljet, S., Keyeo, F. and Amir, H.G. 2011.Influence of carrier materials and storage temperature on survivability of rhizobium Asian journal of plant sciences 10 (6):331-337.
  15. Khavazi, k. and Rejali, F. 1379. The use of some low-cost materials as carrier for Bradyrhizobium japonicom. Journal of soil and water 14(1): 36-45.
  16. Laura, K., Lion, D.Y. and Alvarez, J. J. A. 2006.Comparative eco-toxicityof nanoscale TiO2, SiO2, and ZnO water suspention.Water research 40: 3527-3532.
  17. Li, M., Zhu, L. and Lin, L. 2011. Toxity of ZnO nanoparticles to Escherchia coli: Mechanism and the influence of medium component. Enviroment science and technology 45:1977-1983.
  18. Liang, J., Wu, R., Huang, T.S. and Worley, S. D. 2004. Polymerization of a hydantionylsicloxane on particles of silicon dioxide to produce a biocidalsand. J. Appl. Polym. Sci 97:1161-1166.
  19. Liong, M., France, B., Bradley, K. A. and Zink, J. L. 2009. Antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticle encapsulated in mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Advanced material 21:1684-1689.
  20. Lindsay, W. L. and Norvell, W. A. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42: 421-428.
  21. Liu, X., Feng, Z., Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Xiao, Q. and Wang, Y. 2006. Preparation and testing of cementing nano-subnano composites of slowor controlled release of fertilizers. Scientia Agricultura Sinica 39:1598-1604.
  22. Mashhadi, S. H. and Asgharzadeh, A. N. 2004. The comparison on effectiveness of some carriers for bacteria Sinorhizobium meliloti in order to alfa alfa inoculants production, The journal of agriculture and natural resources sciences and technologies 8: 63-74.
  23. Mendes, F. and Videira, I. 2005. Residues of the Cork Industry as Carriers for the Production of Legume Inoculants. Silva Lusitana 13(2):159-167.
  24. Maynard, A., Oberdörster, G., Donaldson, K., Castranova, V., Fitzpatrick, J., Ausman, K., Carter, J., Karn, B., Kreyling, W., Lai, D., Olin, S., Monteiro-Riviere, N., Warheit, D. and Yang, H. 2005.Nanoparticles – known and unknown health risks”. Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2:12.
  25. Monreal, C.M. 2010. Nanofertilizers for Increased N and P Use Efficiencies by Crops. In summary of information currently provided to MRI concerning applications for Round 5 of the Ontario Research Fund-Research Excellence program 12-13.
  26. Navarro, E., Baun, A., Behra, R., Hartmann, N. B., Filser, J., Miao, A. J., Quigg, A., Santschi, P. H. and Sigg, L. Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 17:372-386.
  27. Pennell, K. D. P. 303-308. In J.H. Dane and G.C.Topp (Ed.). Methods of soil analysis. part 2. chemical and microbiological properties. Madison, Wisconsin. USA.
  28. Pesenti, B.B., Ferdani, E., Mosti, M. and innocent, D. F. 1991. Survival of Agrobacterium radiobacter K84 on Various Carriers for Crown Gall Control. Applied and environmental microbiology 57(7): 2047-2051.
  29. Qu, X., Hwang, Y.S. and Li, Q. Impact of sunlight and humic acid on the aggregation kinetics of nC60. 240th ACS National Meeting. August 22-26.2010. Boston. MA.
  30. Sahle-Demessie, E., Li, Z. and Sorial, G. 2010. Effects of natural organic matter on stability, transport and deposition of engineered nanoparticles in porous media. 240th ACS National Meeting. August 22-26. Boston. MA.
  31. Sayes, C. M., Gobin, A. M., Ausman, K. D., Mendez, J., West, J. L. and Colvin, V. L. Nano-C60 cytotoxicity is due to lipid peroxidation. Biomaterials 26:7587-7595.
  32. Sekar, R.K., and Karmegam, N. 2010. Earthworm casts as an alternate carrier material for biofertilizers: Assessment of endurance and viability of Azotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus megaterium and Rhizobium leguminosarum. Scientia Horticulturae 124: 286–289.
  33. Shaviv, A. 2005. Controlled Release of Fertilizers. IFA International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers, 28-30, Frankfurt, Germany.
  34. Shih, Y.S., Wu, S.C. and Tseng, U.M. 2011. Effect of humic acid on the stability of TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles in water. 240th ACS National Meeting. August 22-26. 2011. Boston. MA
  35. Somasegaran, P. and Hoben H. J. 1994. Hand book for rhizobia: methods in legume Rhizobium Springer-verlag. New York.
  36. Sparks, D.L. 1996. Method of soil Analysis. Part3. Chemical Methods. American Society of Agronomy.
  37. Strijdom, W. and. Rensburg, H. J. 1981. Effect of Steam Sterilization and Gamma Irradiation of Peat on Quality of Rhizobium Inoculants. Applied and environmental microbiology 41(6): 1344-1347.
  38. Tong, H., Bischoff, M., Nies, L., Applegate, B. and Turco, R. F. 2007. Impact of fullerene (C60) on a soil microbial community. Environ. Sci. Technol 41:2985-2991
زیست شناسی خاک
دوره 1، شماره 2
اسفند 1392
صفحه 83-92

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار