Research article

Dual effects of a dispersant and nutrient supplementation on weathered Endicott oil biodegradation in seawater

  • Received: 08 August 2016 Accepted: 01 November 2016 Published: 09 November 2016
  • Laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to evaluate the biodegradation of physically (WAF) and chemically dispersed (CEWAF) Endicott oil in seawater (salinity: 29.1‰) from Prince William Sound, Alaska, under low nutrient (LN) (background seawater) and high nutrient (HN) (addition of 100 mg NO3-N/L and 10 mg PO4-P/L to background seawater) at 15 ± 0.5 °C for 42 days. The dispersant was Corexit 9500. The dispersed oil concentration of the WAF (0.019 g/L ± 0.002) was an order of magnitude lower than that in the CEWAF (0.363 g/L ± 0.038). While remaining negligible in the WAF, the total oil removal in the CEWAF was 26% and 44% in LN and HN treatments, respectively. Nutrient supplementation significantly accelerated the rate of oil biodegradation as confirmed by ANOVA coupled with Tukey’s test at 95% confidence intervals (α = 0.05). GC/MS analyses revealed that biodegradation affected mainly alkane compounds. In the CEWAF, O2 consumption, CO2 production and biomass were much larger in HN than in LN treatments, which suggests that chemical dispersion of oil coupled with high nutrient concentration could be very useful in terms of remediation strategies and effective responses to oil spill at sea.

    Citation: Yves R. Personna, Thomas King, Michel C. Boufadel, Shuangyi Zhang, Lisa Axe. Dual effects of a dispersant and nutrient supplementation on weathered Endicott oil biodegradation in seawater[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 739-751. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.739

    Related Papers:

    [1] Chiara De Santi, Sucharitha Gadi, Agnieszka Swiatecka-Urban, Catherine M. Greene . Identification of a novel functional miR-143-5p recognition element in the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator 3’UTR. AIMS Genetics, 2018, 5(1): 53-62. doi: 10.3934/genet.2018.1.53
    [2] Mohammad Hashemi, Fatemeh Bizhani, Hiva Danesh, Behzad Narouie, Mehdi Sotoudeh, Mohammad Hadi Radfar, Mehdi Honarkar Ramezani, Gholamreza Bahari, Mohsen Taheri, Saeid Ghavami . MiR-608 rs4919510 C>G polymorphism increased the risk of bladder cancer in an Iranian population. AIMS Genetics, 2016, 3(4): 212-218. doi: 10.3934/genet.2016.4.212
    [3] Tahereh Karamzadeh, Hamzeh Alipour, Marziae Shahriari-Namadi, Abbasali Raz, Kourosh Azizi, Masoumeh Bagheri, Mohammad D. Moemenbellah-Fard . Molecular characterization of the netrin-1 UNC-5 receptor in Lucilia sericata larvae. AIMS Genetics, 2019, 6(3): 46-54. doi: 10.3934/genet.2019.3.46
    [4] Huong Thi Thu Phung, Hoa Luong Hieu Nguyen, Dung Hoang Nguyen . The possible function of Flp1 in homologous recombination repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. AIMS Genetics, 2018, 5(2): 161-176. doi: 10.3934/genet.2018.2.161
    [5] Michael T. Fasullo, Mingzeng Sun . Both RAD5-dependent and independent pathways are involved in DNA damage-associated sister chromatid exchange in budding yeast. AIMS Genetics, 2017, 4(2): 84-102. doi: 10.3934/genet.2017.2.84
    [6] Jeffrey M. Marcus . Our love-hate relationship with DNA barcodes, the Y2K problem, and the search for next generation barcodes. AIMS Genetics, 2018, 5(1): 1-23. doi: 10.3934/genet.2018.1.1
    [7] Noel Pabalan, Neetu Singh, Eloisa Singian, Caio Parente Barbosa, Bianca Bianco, Hamdi Jarjanazi . Associations of CYP1A1 gene polymorphisms and risk of breast cancer in Indian women: a meta-analysis. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(4): 250-262. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.4.250
    [8] Xiaojuan Wang, Jianghong Wu, Zhongren Yang, Fenglan Zhang, Hailian Sun, Xiao Qiu, Fengyan Yi, Ding Yang, Fengling Shi . Physiological responses and transcriptome analysis of the Kochia prostrata (L.) Schrad. to seedling drought stress. AIMS Genetics, 2019, 6(2): 17-35. doi: 10.3934/genet.2019.2.17
    [9] Jue Er Amanda Lee, Linda May Parsons, Leonie M. Quinn . MYC function and regulation in flies: how Drosophila has enlightened MYC cancer biology. AIMS Genetics, 2014, 1(1): 81-98. doi: 10.3934/genet.2014.1.81
    [10] John E. La Marca, Wayne Gregory Somers . The Drosophila gonads: models for stem cell proliferation, self-renewal, and differentiation. AIMS Genetics, 2014, 1(1): 55-80. doi: 10.3934/genet.2014.1.55
  • Laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to evaluate the biodegradation of physically (WAF) and chemically dispersed (CEWAF) Endicott oil in seawater (salinity: 29.1‰) from Prince William Sound, Alaska, under low nutrient (LN) (background seawater) and high nutrient (HN) (addition of 100 mg NO3-N/L and 10 mg PO4-P/L to background seawater) at 15 ± 0.5 °C for 42 days. The dispersant was Corexit 9500. The dispersed oil concentration of the WAF (0.019 g/L ± 0.002) was an order of magnitude lower than that in the CEWAF (0.363 g/L ± 0.038). While remaining negligible in the WAF, the total oil removal in the CEWAF was 26% and 44% in LN and HN treatments, respectively. Nutrient supplementation significantly accelerated the rate of oil biodegradation as confirmed by ANOVA coupled with Tukey’s test at 95% confidence intervals (α = 0.05). GC/MS analyses revealed that biodegradation affected mainly alkane compounds. In the CEWAF, O2 consumption, CO2 production and biomass were much larger in HN than in LN treatments, which suggests that chemical dispersion of oil coupled with high nutrient concentration could be very useful in terms of remediation strategies and effective responses to oil spill at sea.


    The head groups of membrane lipids have either single charge (e.g. tetraether lipids [1], phosphatidic acid (PA), phosphatidylserine (PS), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), and phosphatidylinositol (PI)) or electric dipole (e.g. phospholipids, such as dimyristoyl-, dipalmitoyl- and distearoylphosphatidyl choline (DMPC, DPPC and DSPC, respectively)).

    Between lipids containing head groups with electric dipole there is short range interaction, i.e. where the two-body potential decays algebraically at large distances with a power equal or larger than the spatial dimension [2]. Theoretical models of lipid membranes usually focus on systems where there is short range lateral interactions between nearest neighbor lipids [3],[4] because it is enough to consider only the interactions between nearest-neighbor lipid molecules. It is much more difficult to model a lipid membrane containing single charged head groups [5]. Between lipids with single charged head groups there is long range interaction, i.e. where the two-body potential decays algebraically at large distances with a power smaller than the spatial dimension [2] and thus modeling this system one has to consider the entire system rather than the interactions between the nearest-neighbor lipids. In order to get closer to the solution of this problem recently we developed a generalized version of Newton's Shell Theorem [6],[7] to calculate the electric potential, V around a surface-charged sphere (of radius R1) surrounded by electrolyte at a distance Z from the center of the sphere (see also Eqs 9,10 in ref.7):

    V(Z)=ke·Q1·λDϵr·Z·R1·eZλD·sinh(R1λD)   atZ>R1

    V(Z)=ke·Q1·λDϵr·Z·R1·eR1λD·sinh(ZλD)   atZ<R1

    where ke=(4πϵ0)1 is the Coulomb's constant, λD is the Debye length, Q1 is the total charge of the homogeneously charged surface of the sphere of radius R1, ϵr is the relative static permittivity of the electrolyte. Deriving Eqs 1,2 the general solution of the Screened Poisson Equation was utilized (see Eq 4 in ref.7 or A5 in Appendix 1), an equation that is valid if the electrolyte is electrically neutral [8]. It is important to note that the Screened Poisson Equation (Eq A4) is different from the Poisson-Boltzmann equation (see Eqs A1,A3). The Poisson-Boltzmann equation can be used to calculate the potential energy of an arbitrary, electroneutral, ion solution (i.e. electrolyte). However, for the solution (see Eq A2) one has to know the charge density of the ions in the electrolyte (i.e. the Boltzmann distribution; see Eq A3), which depends on the potential, V, itself. Thus only approximative solution is available (the Debye- Hückel approximation [9]), that is valid when |zieV/(kBT)|1 (where e: charge of an electron, zi: charge number of the i-th type of ion, kB: Boltzmann constant, T: absolute temperature).

    Using the Screened Poisson Equation (Eq A4) one can calculate the potential energy of an electrolyte that contains also external charges. The external charges are embedded into the electrolyte (like the charges of the surface-charged sphere) but not part of the electrolyte itself. For the solution one has to know the charge density of the external charges (see Eq 4 in ref.7 or Eq A5 in Appendix 1), i.e. distribution of the charges on the surface-charged sphere and not the distribution of the ions in the electrolyte. In our case it is assumed that the charges on the surface of the sphere are homogeneously distributed and in this case Eqs 1,2 is the exact solution of the Screened Poisson Equation.

    Note that recently by using Eqs 1,2 electric energies have been calculated [10], such as the electric potential energy needed to build up a surface-charged sphere, and the field and polarization energy of the electrolyte inside and around the surface-charged sphere.

    In this paper the density of electric field energy is calculated around two surface-charged spheres where the smaller sphere is located inside the larger one and the entire system is embedded in neutral electrolyte. This system is close to a charged vesicle [1] or to a cell [11] where charged lipids are located both on the outer and inner leaflet of the membrane, i.e. two concentric surface-charged spheres. It also models an eukaryote [12] where neutral phospholipids such as sphingomyelin and zwitterionic phosphatidylcholine are located primarily in the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane, and most anionic phospholipids, such as phosphatidic acid (PA), phosphatidylserine (PS), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), and phosphatidylinositol (PI) are located in the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane (represented by the large surface-charged sphere of our model). Eukaryotes also have a single nucleus enveloped by double layer of lipid membranes which may contain charged lipids too (representing the smaller surface-charged sphere of our model). Note that these two charged spheres of an eukaryote are not necessarily concentric. Finally, our model is generalized for the case when the large surface-charged sphere contains several smaller surface-charged spheres. This system may also model osteoclast cells [12] containing many nuclei.

    In this work the density of the electric field energy inside and outside of two surface-charged spheres are calculated at different locations. The density of the electric field energy at a point can be calculated by the following equation [13]:

    uF=ϵrϵ02E¯·E¯

    where E is the vector of the electric field strength at the considered point, ϵ0 is the absolute vacuum permittivity and ϵr is the relative permittivity of the electrolyte.

    Here by using the recently generalized Shell Theorem [7] we calculate the density of electric field energy, uF produced by two surface-charged spheres (see Figure 1) surrounded outside and inside by electrolyte where the smaller sphere is located inside the larger sphere.

    Figure 1.  Two surface-charged spheres surrounded outside and inside by electrolyte where the smaller sphere is located inside the larger one.

    Z: the distance between the centers of the spheres (dashed blue line); R1 and RL is the radius of the smaller and larger sphere, respectively; D1 and DL is the distance between point P1 and the center of the smaller and larger sphere, respectively; E1 and EL is the field strength created in point P1 by the smaller and larger surface-charged sphere, respectively.

    The origin of the coordinate system (x, y) is attached to the center of the larger sphere and the coordinates of point P1 are xp and yp. The coordinates of the center of the larger and smaller sphere are (xL,yL)=(0,0) and (x1,y1)=(Z,0), respectively.

    In order to calculate the density of electric field energy one has to determine the electric field strength (see Eq 3), i.e. the gradient of the electric potential. The potential produced by the smaller sphere, V1 at a distance D1 from its center can be calculated by Eqs 1,2 (or Eqs 9,10 in ref.[7]). The electric field strength created by the smaller sphere at point P1 (see Figure 1) is:

    E¯1=grad(V1)=(dV1dD1dD1dxP,dV1dD1dD1dyP)=dV1dD1(d(xPx1)2+(yPy1)2dxP,d(xPx1)2+(yPy1)2dyP)=dV1dD1(xPx1D1,yPy1D1)=(dV1dD1xP+ZD1,dV1dD1yPD1)=(E1x,E1y)

    where

    dV1dD1={keQ1λDϵrR1sinh(R1/λD)[eD1λDD21eD1λDD1λD]  ifD1>R1keQ1λDϵrR1eR1λD[sinh(D1λD)D21+cosh(D1λD)D1λD]  ifD1<R1

    where λD is the Debye length and ZRLR1.

    Similarly, the electric field strength created by the large sphere at point P1 (i.e. at a distance DL from its center; see Figure 1) is:

    E¯L=grad(VL)=(dVLdDLdDLdxP,dVLdDLdDLdyP)=dVLdDL(d(xPxL)2+(yPyL)2dxP,d(xPxL)2+(yPyL)2dyP)=dVLdDL(xPxLDL,yPyLDL)=(dVLdDLxPDL,dVLdDLyPDL)=(ELx,ELy)

    where one can construct dVLdDL from Eq 5 by changing D1 to DL, R1 to RL and Q1 to QL.

    uF(xP,yP)=ϵrϵ02E¯·E¯=ϵrϵ02(E¯1+E¯L)·(E¯1+E¯L)=ϵrϵ02([E1x+ELx],[E1y+ELy])·([E1x+ELx],[E1y+ELy])=ϵrϵ02([E1x+ELx]2+[E1y+ELy]2)

    Here by using Eq 7 the density of the electric field energy, uF, is calculated around two surface- charged spheres (where the smaller sphere is located inside the larger sphere) surrounded in- and outside by electrolyte. The radius of the larger and smaller sphere is: RL=106m and R1=0.2RL, respectively. The surface charge density of the homogeneously charged spheres is ρs = −0.266 C/m2 (the surface charge density of the PLFE lipid vesicles [1]). The total charge of the larger and the smaller sphere is, Q2=ρs4πR22=3.3427·1012C and Q1=ρs4πR21=1.337·1013C, respectively. This system is axially symmetric, where the symmetry axis is the straight line connecting the centers of the spheres. The center of the attached coordinate system is at the center of large sphere and the x axis is defined by the symmetry axis. Because of the axial symmetry of the system it is enough to calculate uF along straight lines parallel to the symmetry axis (see Figure 2), where the same yP coordinate belongs to each straight line. The surface-charged spheres are surrounded by electrolyte containing monovalent ions. The considered electrolyte ion concentrations (of the positive ion) are: 0.00001, 0.001 and 0.1 mol/m3 and the respective Debye lengths are: 3.05 · 10−6, 3.05 · 10−7 and 3.05 · 10−8 m (see Table 1 in ref.7), and the relative permittivity of the electrolyte is ϵr = 78.

    Figure 2.  Locations of a small surface-charged sphere inside a large surface-charged sphere.

    Inside a large surface-charged sphere of radius RL(=106m) a small surface-charged sphere of radius R1(=0.2RL) is located. The electric field energy density, uF is calculated at the three different locations of the small sphere, i.e. in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 the center of the small sphere is at Z=0.8RL (see small orange circle), Z=0.5RL (see small purple circle) and Z = 0 (see small dark red circle at the center of the large circle), respectively. In Figures 35 the electric field energy densities are calculated along the five horizontal (dashed red, green, blue, grey, black) lines.

    Figure 3.  Density of the electric field energy around two surface-charged spheres.

    Z=0.8RL.

    Dotted red line: yP=0.75R1; green line: yP=R1; blue line: yP=0.7RL; grey line: yP=RL; black line: yP=1.01RL. The concentration of the monovalent positive (or negative) ion in the electrolyte is: A) C=0.1mol/m3; B) C=0.001mol/m3; C) C=0.00001mol/m3.

    The connection point between the large sphere and the small sphere (represented by orange circle in Figure 2) is at xP=RL and yP=0. At this point there is no electrolyte and Eqs 47 are not applicable. Similar situations take place when the horizontal line crosses the circles in Figure 2. The xp coordinates of these cross sections, xcp can be calculated by:

    xcp=±R2Ly2p(crossing the large circle, i.e.yP<RL)

    and

    xcp=Z±R21y2p(crossing the small circle located at RL<x1<0 and yP<R1)

    xcp=Z±R21y2p(crossing the small circle located at 0<x1<RL and yP<R1)

    where x1 is the x coordinate of the center of the small sphere.

    Figure 4.  Density of the electric field energy around two surface-charged spheres.

    Z=0.5RL

    Dotted red line: yP=0.75R1; green line: yP=R1; blue line: yP=0.7RL; grey line: yP=RL; black line: yP=1.01RL. The concentration of the monovalent positive (or negative) ion in the electrolyte is: A) C=0.1mol/m3; B) C=0.001mol/m3; C) C=0.00001mol/m3.

    Figure 5.  Density of the electric field energy around two surface-charged spheres.

    Z=0

    Dotted red line: yP=0.75R1; green line: yP=R1; blue line: yP=0.7RL; grey line: yP=RL; black line: yP=1.01RL. The concentration of the monovalent positive (or negative) ion in the electrolyte is: A) C=0.1mol/m3; B) C=0.001mol/m3; C) C=0.00001mol/m3.

    Note in Figures 35 the sharp maxima of the density of the electric field energy appear where the horizontal line at the respective yP crosses the charged sphere(s). These crossing points, xcp's, can be calculated by Eqs 810. In the case of yP=0.75R1 the values of the crossing points are listed at the first column of Table 1.

    It is also important to note that |E¯1|~Q1 and |E¯L|~QL (see Eqs 46) and thus in the case of total surface charges a·Q1 and a·QL (where 0<a<1 is a constant) the electric field energy density will be a2 times of the above calculated uF(xP,yP) values (see Eq 7).

    In this work the solution of the screened Poisson equation ([7] and Eq A5 in Appendix 1) is used to calculate the field energy density around two surface-charged spheres where the small sphere is located inside the large sphere. This solution is not restricted to small potentials (<< 25 mV) like in the case of the Debye-Hückel approximation of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation [9] where the superposition principle is not applicable either. This is an important advantage because the measured absolute value of the Zeta potentials of the cells are usually higher than 25 mV (e.g. –57.89 ± 22.63 mV on ARO cells, –40.41 ± 5.10 mV on C32TG cells, −46.99 ± 18.71 mV on RT4 cells, –40.13 ± 9.28 mV on TK cells, and −43.03 ± 5.52 mV on UM-UC-14 cells [14].

    The considered two spheres (with homogeneously charged surfaces) electrically interact. If the lateral movement of the charges on the spheres would not be restricted the interaction of the smaller sphere (located inside the larger sphere) with the larger sphere would result in inhomogeneous distribution of the surface charges on both spheres. However, the free lateral diffusion of proteins and lipids are usually restricted in biological membranes not only by direct collisions with structures where immobile proteins are crowded, but also by electrostatic deflection, hydrophobic mismatches, and other mechanisms [15].

    The density of the electric field energy depends on the electric field strength (Eq 3), i.e. the gradient of the electric potential (Eqs 4,6). In the case of a single surface-charged sphere surrounded by electrolyte with low ion concentration the potential inside the sphere is close to constant (see red curve in Figure 3A in ref. [7]) and thus the absolute value of the electric field strength is close to zero. On the other hand, outside the sphere the absolute value of the potential and also the electric field strength decrease with increasing distance from the surface of the sphere (see red curve in Figure 3A in ref. [7]). At higher electrolyte ion concentration, because of the increased screening effect, the absolute value of the potential and also the electric field strength decrease faster with increasing distance from the surface of the sphere. In this case inside the sphere toward its center the absolute value of the potential and the electric field strength also decrease (see curves in Figure 3A,B in ref. [7]).

    In this work two surface-charged spheres (with the same surface charge density) are considered where the smaller sphere is located inside the larger sphere. The above mentioned electric properties of a single surface-charged sphere remain the same for the smaller sphere (located inside a larger sphere) if the surfaces of the spheres are far enough from each other (farther than 4 λD), i.e. the absolute value of the potential decreases close to zero between the surfaces of the two spheres. However, when part of the surfaces of the two spheres are close enough to each other one sphere contributes to the potential and electric field strength around the other sphere. The electric field energy density is particularly high at the place where the surfaces of the two spheres touch each other. This maximal electric field energy density is very close to the outer surface of the larger sphere. Thus one can detect at the outer surface of the erythrocyte when the nucleus is getting close.

    The electric field energy density has maximum when the horizontal line crosses the circles in Figure 2. The xp coordinates of these cross sections, xcp can be calculated by Eqs 810. When the x axis of the coordinate system is the horizontal line (i.e. yP=0 ) the electric field energy density is particularly high at the place where the surfaces of the two spheres touch each other (see orange circles in Figure 2) at close to zero electrolyte ion concentration (i.e. C=0.00001mol/m3):

    uF(xP=RL+,yP=0;x1=Z=0.8RL=RLR1)=ϵrϵ02(·[E1x+ELx]2+[E1y+ELy]2)=ϵrϵ02([(dV1dD1)D1=R1+xpx1R1++(dVLdDL)DL=RL+xpRL+]2+[0+0]2)ϵrϵ02([keQ1ϵrR21+keQLϵrR2L+]2)=2ρ2sϵrϵ0=1.4798·108Jm3

    This maximal electric field energy density is very close to the outer surface of the larger sphere (|xP|=RL+RL) on the x axis of the coordinate system. The x axis also crosses the small and large spheres at xp=3R1 and xp=RL, respectively. Very close to these coss sections, at the outer side of the spheres, the field energy density is only a quarter of the above maximal value.

    In general the first maximum of uF (see the left maximum in Figures 35) is getting smaller when the center of the small sphere approaches the center of the large sphere. This is the case because the interaction between the spheres is reducing when the average distance between the surfaces of the two spheres is increasing.

    In the case of horizontal lines where yP>0E1y+ELy contributes also to uF. This contribution is particularly high by E1y when xpZ or by ELy when xp0 relative to the contribution by E1x and ELx, respectively.

    When the location of the center of the small and large sphere is identical (i.e. Z=0) then because of the additional symmetry uF(xP,yP)=uF(xp,yP) at any value of yp (see Figure 5).

    When yp>R1the horizontal line crosses only the surface of the large sphere at two points and these are symmetric crossing points (where the y axis is the symmetry axis). The distance of the left crossing point from the y axis is similar to the distance of the right crossing point from the y axis (see Eq 8). Because of this symmetry if the small sphere only slightly affect the field strength along the horizontal line then uF(xP,yP)uF(xp,yP) at any location of the small sphere along the x axis (see blue, black and grey lines in Figures 35).

    In the case of 0<yp<R1 the horizontal line crosses twice the large and twice the small sphere. In the case of the dotted red lines in Figures 35 yp=0.75R1 and each curve has four maxima. The hight of each maxima depends on the square of the field strength at the respective crossing point (see Eq 3), which is related to the x and y components of the field strengths created by the small sphere (E1x, E1y) and by the large sphere (ELx, ELy) (see Eq 7). In order to find out the reason of the hight of each maximum of the curves shown in Figures 3B5B (i.e. at C=0.001mol/m3) in Table 1 these x and y components of the field strengths are listed.

    Table 1.  Values of the x and y components of the electric field strength at the cross sections between a horizontal line (at yp=0.75·R1) and two spheres of radii R1 and RL.
    Cross # xP [m] uF [J] E1x [V/m] ELx [V/m] E1y [V/m] ELy [V/m]
    Z = 0.8 RL
    1 −9.9·10−7 7.4·107 1.8·108 2.47·108 −1.42·108 −3.74·107
    2 −9.4·10−7 2.2·107 2.29·108 −1.16·108 −2.45·108 1.86·107
    3 −6.6·10−7 4.65·107 −2.29·108 −5.45·107 −2.45·108 1.24·107
    4 9.9·10−7 2.15·107 −9.7·104 −2.47·108 −8.2·103 −3.74·107
    Z = 0.5 RL
    1 −9.9·10−7 2.73·107 3·107 2.47·108 −9.22·106 −3.74·107
    2 −6.4·10−7 2.97·107 2.29·108 −5.16·107 −2.45·108 1.2·107
    3 −3.6·10−7 4.1·107 −2.29·108 −2.2·107 −2.45·108 9.16·106
    4 9.9·10−7 2.15·107 −3.2·105 −2.47·108 −3.22·104 −3.74·107
    Z = 0.0 RL
    1 −9.9·10−7 2.2·107 2.6·106 2.47·108 −3.97·105 −3.74·107
    2 −1.4·10−7 3.63·107 2.29·108 −7.6·106 −2.45·108 8.17·106
    3 1.4·10−7 3.63·107 −2.29·108 7.6·106 −2.45·108 8.17·106
    4 9.9·10−7 2.2·107 −2.6·106 −2.47·108 −3.97·105 −3.74·107

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    For example in the case of Z=0.5RL (thus x1=Z=5·107m) the reason that the mimum at cross section 3 is higher than at cross section 2 is that at cross section 3 both E1x(3) and ELx(3) are negative while at cross section 2 E1x(2) is positive and ELx(2) is negative. Because of this at cross section 3 [E1x+ELx]2 much larger than at cross section 2. Actually because of the symmetry |E1x(3)|=|E1x(2)| but signE1x(3)signE1x(2) because sign(xp(3)x1D1)sign(xp(2)x1D1) (see Eq 4).

    As an other example in the case of Z=0.0RL the maximum at cross section 3 is higher than at cross section 4. The reason is that |ELy(4)|·|ELx(4)| while |E1y(3)||E1x(3)||ELx(4)|. Note that |ELy(4)|·|ELx(4)|because the direction of E¯L(4) is close to the direction of the x axis.

    Finally, the analytical equation, Eq 7, for the calculation of the electric field energy density of two surface-charged spheres (the smaller sphere located inside the larger sphere), can be generalized for the case when N small surface-charged spheres are located inside the large sphere (see Appendix 2). Also when the radius of the smaller sphere approaches zero the total surface charge of the smaller sphere, Q1 approaches zero too and consequently the electric field strength of the smaller sphere, E1 approaches zero. Thus, based on Eq 7 one can calculate the field energy density around a single charged sphere by:

    uF(xP,yP)=ϵrϵ02E¯·E¯=ϵrϵ02(E¯L)·(E¯L)=ϵrϵ02(ELx,ELy)·(ELx,ELy)=ϵrϵ02([ELx]2+[ELy]2)

    Based on the generalized version of Newton's Shell Theorem [7] the electric field energy density, uF around two surface-charged spheres surrounded by electrolyte where the smaller sphere is inside the larger one is analytically calculated. According to the calculations when the surfaces of the spheres are farther from each other than four times of the Debye length the field energy density around and inside the smaller sphere is basically independent from the presence of the larger sphere. The electric field energy density is maximal when the smaller sphere touches the inner surface of the larger sphere and the maximum of uF is located at the touching point on the outer surface of the larger sphere.

    [1] McGenity TJ (2014) Hydrocarbon biodegradation in intertidal wetland sediments. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27: 46-54. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.10.010
    [2] Atlas RM, Hazen TC (2011) Oil biodegradation and bioremediation: a tale of the two worst spills in U.S. history. Environ Sci Technol 45: 6709-6715. doi: 10.1021/es2013227
    [3] NOAA (2010) Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget: what happened to the oil. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report Silver Spring, MD Authors: Lubchenco, Jane; McNutt, Marcia; Lehr, Bill; Sogge, Mark; Miller, Mark; Hammond, Stephen; Conner, William.
    [4] Kaku VJ, Boufadel MC, Venosa AD (2006) Evaluation of mixing energy in laboratory flasks used for dispersant effectiveness testing. J Environ Eng 132: 93-101. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:1(93)
    [5] Zhao L, Torlapati J, Boufadel MC, et al. (2014) VDROP: a numerical model for the simulation of droplet formation from oils of various viscosities. Chem Eng J 253: 93-106. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.04.082
    [6] Venosa AD, Holder EL (2007) Biodegradability of dispersed crude oil at two different temperatures. Mar Pollut Bull 54: 545-553. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.013
    [7] Ron EZ, Rosenberg E (2002) Biosurfactants and oil bioremediation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13: 249-252. doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00316-6
    [8] Rosenberg E, Ron E (1999) High-and low-molecular-mass microbial surfactants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 52: 154-162. doi: 10.1007/s002530051502
    [9] NRC (2005) Oil spill dispersants: efficacy and effects: National Academies Press.
    [10] Boufadel MC, Sharifi Y, Van Aken B, et al. (2010) Nutrient and oxygen concentrations within the sediments of an Alaskan beach polluted with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Sci Technol 44: 7418-7424. doi: 10.1021/es102046n
    [11] Bragg JR, Prince RC, Harner EJ, et al. (1994) Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nature 368: 413-418. doi: 10.1038/368413a0
    [12] Sharifi Y, Van Aken B, Boufadel MC (2011) The effect of pore water chemistry on the biodegradation of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Water Qual Expos Hea 2: 157-168.
    [13] Venosa AD, Suidan MT, Wrenn BA, et al. (1996) Bioremediation of an experimental oil spill on the shoreline of Delaware Bay. Environ Sci Technol 30: 1764-1775. doi: 10.1021/es950754r
    [14] Boufadel M, Reeser P, Suidan M, et al. (1999) Optimal nitrate concentration for the biodegradation of n-heptadecane in a variably-saturated sand column. Environ Technol 20: 191-199. doi: 10.1080/09593332008616808
    [15] Geng X, Boufadel MC, Personna YR, et al. (2014) BIOB: a mathematical model for the biodegradation of low solubility hydrocarbons. Mar Pollut Bull 83: 138-147. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.04.007
    [16] Atlas RM, Bartha R (1973) Stimulated biodegradation of oil slicks using oleophilic fertilizers. Environ Sci Technol 7: 538-541. doi: 10.1021/es60078a005
    [17] Oh YS, Sim DS, Kim SJ (2003) Effectiveness of bioremediation on oil-contaminated sand in intertidal zone. J microbiol biotechnol 13: 437-443.
    [18] Smith VH, Graham DW, Cleland DD (1998) Application of resource-ratio theory to hydrocarbon biodegradation. Environ sci technol 32: 3386-3395. doi: 10.1021/es9805019
    [19] Zahed MA, Aziz HA, Isa MH, et al. (2010) Optimal conditions for bioremediation of oily seawater. Bioresour technol 101: 9455-9460. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.077
    [20] Blondina GJ, Singer MM, Lee I, et al. (1999) Influence of salinity on petroleum accommodation by dispersants. Spill Sci Technol B 5: 127-134.
    [21] Mille GM, Almallah M, Bianchi M, et al. (1991) Effect of salinity on petroleum biodegradation. Fresenius J anal chem 339: 788-791. doi: 10.1007/BF00321746
    [22] Personna YR, King T, Boufadel MC, et al. (2014) Assessing weathered Endicott oil biodegradation in brackish water. Mar Pollut Bull 86: 102-110.
    [23] Fisher SD ( 2005) Enhanced biodegradation of highly weathered crude oil by chemical oxidation. . St. Louis, MO: Washington University.
    [24] EPA (1996) Method 3510C: Separatory funnel liquid-liquid extraction. Revision 3, pp. 1-8.
    [25] Wrenn BA, Venosa AD (1996) Selective enumeration of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon degrading bacteria by a most-probable-number procedure. Can J Microbiol 42: 252-258.
    [26] Rittmann BE, McCarty PL (2001) Environmental biotechnology: McGraw-Hill New York.
    [27] Venosa AD, Holder EL (2013) Determining the dispersibility of South Louisiana crude oil by eight oil dispersant products listed on the NCP Product Schedule. Mar Pollut Bull 66: 73-77. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.009
    [28] Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH (1995) Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol rev 59: 143-169.
    [29] Kästner M, Breuer-Jammali M, Mahro B (1998) Impact of inoculation protocols, salinity, and pH on the degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and survival of PAH-degrading bacteria introduced into soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 359-362.
    [30] Atlas R, Bragg J (2009) Bioremediation of marine oil spills: when and when not–the Exxon Valdez experience. Microb biotechnol 2: 213-221. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00079.x
    [31] Aeppli C, Carmichael CA, Nelson RK, et al. (2012) Oil weathering after the Deepwater Horizon disaster led to the formation of oxygenated residues. Environ sci technol 46: 8799-8807. doi: 10.1021/es3015138
    [32] Venosa AD, Campo P, Suidan MT (2010) Biodegradability of lingering crude oil 19 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ sci technol 44: 7613-7621. doi: 10.1021/es101042h
    [33] Gallego JR, González-Rojas E, Peláez AI, et al. (2006) Natural attenuation and bioremediation of Prestige fuel oil along the Atlantic coast of Galicia (Spain). Org Geochem 37: 1869-1884. doi: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2006.07.022
    [34] Wrenn BA, Sarnecki KL, Kohar ES, et al. (2006) Effects of nutrient source and supply on crude oil biodegradation in continuous-flow beach microcosms. J Environ Eng 132: 75-84.
    [35] Douglas GS, McCarthy KJ, Dahlen DT, et al. (1992) The use of hydrocarbon analyses for environmental assessment and remediation. Soil Sediment Contam 1: 197-216. doi: 10.1080/15320389209383411
    [36] Prince RC, McFarlin KM, Butler JD, et al. (2013) The primary biodegradation of dispersed crude oil in the sea. Chemosphere 90: 521-526. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.020
    [37] McFarlin KM, Prince RC, Perkins R, et al. (2014) Biodegradation of dispersed oil in arctic seawater at-1 C. PloS one 9: e84297.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Abdelali Hannoufa, Craig Matthews, Biruk A. Feyissa, Margaret Y. Gruber, Muhammad Arshad, 2018, Chapter 25, 978-3-030-36326-0, 41, 10.1007/124_2018_25
    2. Sagar Prasad Nayak, Priti Prasad, Vinayak Singh, Abhinandan Mani Tripathi, Sumit Kumar Bag, Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, Role of miRNAs in the regulation of proanthocyanidin biosynthesis in the legume Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC., 2023, 0167-6903, 10.1007/s10725-023-00971-9
    3. Habibullah Khan Achakzai, Muhammad Younas Khan Barozai, Muhammad Din, Iftekhar Ahmed Baloch, Abdul Kabir Khan Achakzai, Allah Bakhsh, Identification and annotation of newly conserved microRNAs and their targets in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), 2018, 13, 1932-6203, e0200033, 10.1371/journal.pone.0200033
    4. Sevgi Marakli, Identification and functional analyses of new sesame miRNAs (Sesamum indicum L.) and their targets, 2018, 45, 0301-4851, 2145, 10.1007/s11033-018-4373-7
    5. Mohandas Snigdha, Duraisamy Prasath, Transcriptomic analysis to reveal the differentially expressed miRNA targets and their miRNAs in response to Ralstonia solanacearum in ginger species, 2021, 21, 1471-2229, 10.1186/s12870-021-03108-0
    6. Lan Li, Guangling Chen, Mingzhu Yuan, Shirong Guo, Yu Wang, Jin Sun, CsbZIP2-miR9748-CsNPF4.4 Module Mediates High Temperature Tolerance of Cucumber Through Jasmonic Acid Pathway, 2022, 13, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2022.883876
    7. Thiago F. Martins, Pedro F. N. Souza, Murilo S. Alves, Fredy Davi A. Silva, Mariana R. Arantes, Ilka M. Vasconcelos, Jose T. A. Oliveira, Identification, characterization, and expression analysis of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) miRNAs in response to cowpea severe mosaic virus (CPSMV) challenge, 2020, 39, 0721-7714, 1061, 10.1007/s00299-020-02548-6
    8. Muhammad Younas Khan Barozai, Zhujia Ye, Sasikiran Reddy Sangireddy, Suping Zhou, Bioinformatics profiling and expressional studies of microRNAs in root, stem and leaf of the bioenergy plant switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) under drought stress, 2018, 8, 23522151, 1, 10.1016/j.aggene.2018.02.001
    9. Yusuf Ceylan, Yasemin Celik Altunoglu, Erdoğan Horuz, HSF and Hsp Gene Families in sunflower: a comprehensive genome-wide determination survey and expression patterns under abiotic stress conditions, 2023, 0033-183X, 10.1007/s00709-023-01862-6
    10. Abdul Baqi, Wajid Rehman, Iram Bibi, Farid Menaa, Yousaf Khan, Doha A. Albalawi, Abdul Sattar, Identification and Validation of Functional miRNAs and Their Main Targets in Sorghum bicolor, 2023, 1073-6085, 10.1007/s12033-023-00988-5
    11. Caoli Zhu, Yicheng Yan, Yaning Feng, Jiawei Sun, Mingdao Mu, Zhiyuan Yang, Genome-Wide Analysis Reveals Key Genes and MicroRNAs Related to Pathogenic Mechanism in Wuchereria bancrofti, 2024, 13, 2076-0817, 1088, 10.3390/pathogens13121088
    12. Kishan Saha, Onyinye C. Ihearahu, Vanessa E. J. Agbor, Teon Evans, Labode Hospice Stevenson Naitchede, Supriyo Ray, George Ude, In Silico Genome-Wide Profiling of Conserved miRNAs in AAA, AAB, and ABB Groups of Musa spp.: Unveiling MicroRNA-Mediated Drought Response, 2025, 26, 1422-0067, 6385, 10.3390/ijms26136385
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5910) PDF downloads(1075) Cited by(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog