Advertisement

Limnology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 153–162 | Cite as

Introduction of DEAE Sepharose for isolation of dissolved organic matter

  • Morimaru Kida
  • Hajime Sato
  • Asuka Okumura
  • Haruka Igarashi
  • Nobuhide FujitakeEmail author
Research paper

Abstract

An anion exchange resin, diethylaminoethyl (DEAE) Sepharose®, was utilized for the isolation of dissolved organic matter (DOM) from fresh waters as an alternative to the discontinued DEAE cellulose. We used the following two chemically distinct model DOM samples to determine the optimized adsorption conditions onto DEAE Sepharose: the International Humic Substances Society’s standard samples, Suwannee River Fulvic Acid (FA) and Pony Lake FA. The optimized conditions consisted of the following: a contact time of 1 h (with shaking), a resin dosage of 1 ml mgC−1, and a dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration range of 1–100 mgC l−1. In addition, we examined the distribution of the DOM fractions extracted with DEAE Sepharose and DAX-8 from Lake Biwa (Japan) and Scottish river DOM samples. The majority of DOM (70% and 65%) was extracted by both of the resins. As indicated by 1H NMR, the evapo-concentrate (bulk DOM), the DEAE Sepharose fraction and the DAX-8 fraction from the Scottish DOM sample had substantial similarity in their proton distributions, while those of a clear-colored, low DOC sample (Lake Biwa) showed different NMR spectra. These findings highlight a need to pay more attention to the extraction selectivity of resins for experimentally ‘challenging’ samples.

Keywords

DAX-8 Fractionation Natural organic matter Solid phase extraction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP15H02805 and Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow (17J00808). We thank the Cambridge English Correction Service and Benjamin Andreassen for checking the English in this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10201_2018_561_MOESM1_ESM.docx (226 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 226 kb)

References

  1. Arts MT, Robarts RD, Kasai F et al (2000) The attenuation of ultraviolet radiation in high dissolved organic carbon waters of wetlands and lakes on the northern Great Plains. Limnol Oceanogr 45:292–299.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2000.45.2.0292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyer TH, Singer PC (2008) Stoichiometry of removal of natural organic matter by ion exchange. Environ Sci Technol 42:608–613.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es071940n CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer TH, Singer PC, Aiken GR (2008) Removal of dissolved organic matter by anion exchange: effect of dissolved organic matter properties. Environ Sci Technol 42:7431–7437.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es800714d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brezonik PL, Bloom PR, Sleighter RL et al (2015) Chemical differences of aquatic humic substances extracted by XAD-8 and DEAE-cellulose. J Environ Chem Eng 3:2982–2990.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dittmar T, Koch B, Hertkorn N, Kattner G (2008) A simple and efficient method for the solid-phase extraction of dissolved organic matter (SPE-DOM) from seawater. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 6:230–235.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2008.6.230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fearing DA, Banks J, Guyetand S et al (2004) Combination of ferric and MIEX® for the treatment of a humic rich water. Water Res 38:2551–2558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujitake N, Kodama H, Nagao S et al (2009) Chemical properties of aquatic fulvic acids isolated from Lake Biwa, a clear water system in Japan. Humic Subst Res 5:45–53Google Scholar
  8. Fujitake N, Tsuda K, Aso S et al (2012) Seasonal characteristics of surface water fulvic acids from Lake Biwa and Lake Tankai in Japan. Limnology 13:45–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-011-0354-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green NW, Perdue EM, Aiken GR et al (2014) An intercomparison of three methods for the large-scale isolation of oceanic dissolved organic matter. Mar Chem 161:14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2014.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hertkorn N, Ruecker C, Meringer M et al (2007) High-precision frequency measurements: indispensable tools at the core of the molecular-level analysis of complex systems. Anal Bioanal Chem 389:1311–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1577-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kellerman AM, Kothawala DN, Dittmar T, Tranvik LJ (2015) Persistence of dissolved organic matter in lakes related to its molecular characteristics. Nat Geosci 8:454–457.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kida M, Maki K, Takata A et al (2015) Quantitative monitoring of aquatic humic substances in Lake Biwa, Japan, using the DAX-8 batch method based on carbon concentrations. Org Geochem 83–84:153–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2015.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim S, Simpson AJ, Kujawinski EB et al (2003) High resolution electrospray ionization mass spectrometry and 2D solution NMR for the analysis of DOM extracted by C18 solid phase disk. Org Geochem 34:1325–1335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(03)00101-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krachler R, Krachler RF, Wallner G et al (2015) River-derived humic substances as iron chelators in seawater. Mar Chem 174:85–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2015.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lam B, Simpson AJ (2006) Passive sampler for dissolved organic matter in freshwater environments. Anal Chem 78:8194–8199.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac0608523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lam B, Simpson AJ (2008) Direct 1H NMR spectroscopy of dissolved organic matter in natural waters. Analyst 133:263–269.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B713457F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehtonen T, Peuravuori J, Pihlaja K (2000) Characterisation of lake-aquatic humic matter isolated with two different sorbing solid techniques: tetramethylammonium hydroxide treatment and pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 424:91–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)01141-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li Y, Harir M, Lucio M et al (2016) Proposed guidelines for solid phase extraction of Suwannee River dissolved organic matter. Anal Chem 88:6680–6688.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li Y, Harir M, Uhl J et al (2017) How representative are dissolved organic matter (DOM) extracts? A comprehensive study of sorbent selectivity for DOM isolation. Water Res 116:316–323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKnight DM, Andrews ED, Spaulding SA, Aiken GR (1994) Aquatic fulvic acids in algal-rich Antarctic ponds. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1972–1979.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.8.1972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mergen MRD, Jefferson B, Parsons SA, Jarvis P (2008) Magnetic ion-exchange resin treatment: impact of water type and resin use. Water Res 42:1977–1988.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.11.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metcalfe D, Rockey C, Jefferson B et al (2015) Removal of disinfection by-product precursors by coagulation and an innovative suspended ion exchange process. Water Res 87:20–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miles CJ, Tuschall JR, Brezonik PL (1983) Isolation of aquatic humus with diethylaminoethylcellulose. Anal Chem 55:410–411.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00253a063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minor EC, Swenson MM, Mattson BM, Oyler AR (2014) Structural characterization of dissolved organic matter: a review of current techniques for isolation and analysis. Environ Sci Process Impacts 16:2064–2079.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EM00062E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peuravuori J (2001) Comparisons of sorption of aquatic humic matter by DAX-8 and XAD-8 resins from solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy’s point of view. Talanta 55:733–742.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-9140(01)00478-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peuravuori J, Pihlaja K (1998) Multi-method characterization of lake aquatic humic matter isolated with two different sorbing solids. Anal Chim Acta 363:235–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(98)00136-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peuravuori J, Pihlaja K, Välimäki N (1997) Isolation and characterization of natural organic matter from lake water: Two different adsorption chromatographic methods. Environ Int 23:453–464.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(97)00050-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peuravuori J, Paaso N, Pihlaja K (1999) Characterization of lake-aquatic humic matter isolated with two different sorbing solid techniques: pyrolysis electron impact mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 391:331–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(99)00249-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peuravuori J, Koivikko R, Pihlaja K (2002) Characterization, differentiation and classification of aquatic humic matter separated with different sorbents: synchronous scanning fluorescence spectroscopy. Water Res 36:4552–4562.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00172-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peuravuori J, Monteiro A, Eglite L, Pihlaja K (2005) Comparative study for separation of aquatic humic-type organic constituents by DAX-8, PVP and DEAE sorbing solids and tangential ultrafiltration: elemental composition, size-exclusion chromatography, UV–vis and FT-IR. Talanta 65:408–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2004.06.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shuang C, Wang M, Li P et al (2013) Adsorption of humic acid fractions with different molecular weight by magnetic polyacrylic anion exchange resin. J Soils Sediments 14:312–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0707-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swift RS (1989) Molecular weight, size, shape, and charge characteristics of humic substances: some basic considerations. In: Hayes MHB, MacCarthy P, Malcolm RL, Swift RS (eds) Humic substances II: In search of structure. Wiley, New York, pp 449–465Google Scholar
  33. Tan Y, Kilduff JE (2007) Factors affecting selectivity during dissolved organic matter removal by anion-exchange resins. Water Res 41:4211–4221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor NS, Kirwan JA, Yan ND et al (2015) Metabolomics confirms that dissolved organic carbon mitigates copper toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:635–644.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thurman EM, Malcolm RL (1981) Preparative isolation of aquatic humic substances. Environ Sci Technol 15:463–466.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es00086a012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tranvik LJ (1992) Allochthonous dissolved organic matter as an energy source for pelagic bacteria and the concept of the microbial loop. Hydrobiologia 229:107–114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00006994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsuda K, Takata A, Shirai H et al (2012) A method for quantitative analysis of aquatic humic substances in clear water based on carbon concentration. Anal Sci 28:1017–1020.  https://doi.org/10.2116/analsci.28.1017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warner DL, Oviedo-Vargas D, Royer TV (2015) Evaluation of passive samplers for the collection of dissolved organic matter in streams. Environ Monit Assess 187:4208.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-4208-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Limnology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture, Graduate School of Agricultural ScienceKobe UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations