Experimental Determination of Isotope Enrichment Factors – Bias from

Nov 22, 2016 - Application of compound-specific stable isotope approaches often involves comparisons of isotope enrichment factors (ε). Experimental ...
0 downloads 7 Views 1011KB Size
Subscriber access provided by United Arab Emirates University | Libraries Deanship

Article

Experimental determination of isotope enrichment factors – bias from mass removal by repetitive sampling Daniel Buchner, Biao Jin, Karin Ebert, Massimo Rolle, Martin Elsner, and Stefan B. Haderlein Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03689 • Publication Date (Web): 22 Nov 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 1, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 23

Environmental Science & Technology

Experimental determination of isotope enrichment factors – bias from mass removal by repetitive sampling Daniel Buchner1, Biao Jin1,2, Karin Ebert1,3, Massimo Rolle1,2, Martin Elsner4, Stefan B. Haderlein1* 1

Department of Geosciences, Center for Applied Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Hölderlinstraße 12, 72074 Tübingen, Germany 2 present address: Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Miljøvej Building 113, DK-2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark 3 present address: BoSS Consult GmbH, Lotterbergstraße 16, 70499 Stuttgart 4 Institute of Groundwater Ecology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany *Corresponding author: Stefan B. Haderlein University of Tübingen Department of Geosciences Center for Applied Geosciences Hölderlinstr. 12 D-72070 Tübingen Phone +49-7071-2973148 e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Art

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 2 of 23

1

Abstract

2

Application of compound-specific stable isotope approaches often involves comparisons of

3

isotope enrichment factors (ε). Experimental determination of ε-values is based on the

4

Rayleigh equation, which relates the change in measured isotope ratios to the decreasing

5

substrate fractions and is valid for closed systems. Even in well-controlled batch experiments,

6

however, this requirement is not necessarily fulfilled, since repetitive sampling can remove a

7

significant fraction of the analyte. For volatile compounds the need for appropriate corrections

8

is most evident and various methods have been proposed to account for mass removal and for

9

volatilization into the headspace. In this study we use both synthetic and experimental data to

10

demonstrate that the determination of ε-values according to current correction methods is

11

prone to considerable systematic errors even in well-designed experimental setups.

12

Application of inappropriate methods may lead to incorrect and inconsistent ε-values entailing

13

misinterpretations regarding the processes underlying isotope fractionation. In fact, our results

14

suggest that artifacts arising from inappropriate data evaluation might contribute to the

15

variability of published ε-values. In response, we present novel, adequate methods to

16

eliminate systematic errors in data evaluation. A model-based sensitivity analysis serves to

17

reveal the most crucial experimental parameters and can be used for future experimental

18

design to obtain correct ε-values allowing mechanistic interpretations.

19 20 21

Introduction

22

Compound specific isotope analysis (CSIA) is widely applied in various fields of

23

environmental sciences (i) as forensic tool for contaminant source identification

24

detect and quantify in situ (bio)-degradation 3–5 and (iii) for process characterization including

25

identification of transformation mechanisms in (bio)-degradation studies

26

applications involve isotope enrichment factors (ε), which relate quantitatively measured

27

isotope ratios to substrate fractions of an analyte.

28

ε-values are usually determined using laboratory batch experiments and may be lumped

29

parameters, not only reflecting the underlying kinetic isotope effect of a reaction but also

30

physical constraints or experimental artifacts. Thus, reported ε-values for a given process may

31

span a wide range; for instance, the published εcarbon-values for reductive dehalogenation of

32

trichloroethene (TCE) range from -2.5‰ to -19.6‰

7,12–14

1,2

, (ii) to

6–11

. The latter two

. Numerous experimental studies

3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 23

Environmental Science & Technology

33

tried to unravel the processes and mechanisms that determine the extent of isotope

34

fractionation for a given reaction, e.g., by investigating the transport of the substrate across

35

the cell wall

7,8

, the efficacy of the involved enzymes

15

, the cell density

9,16

or the nutrient

13,17

36

supply

37

For closed systems, isotope enrichment factors can be obtained using a simplified form of the

38

Rayleigh distillation equation

39

between the natural logarithms of the measured substrate fraction, ln fsubstrate(t) and the

40

measured isotope ratios, ln (R(t)/R(0)). While it is obvious that field sites often cannot be

41

treated as closed systems and require modified forms of the Rayleigh equation

42

laboratory batch reactors the applicability of the linearized form of the Rayleigh equation

43

seems to be straightforward as such systems appear to fulfill all requirements of closed

44

systems. These conditions are strictly met in experiments with numerous parallel replicates

45

which are sacrificed sequentially for sampling

46

uncertainty and variability due to different dynamics in such parallel assays.

47

Alternatively, several samples can be withdrawn from the same batch reactor over time to

48

monitor isotope ratios at different values of fsubstrate(t). Repetitive withdrawal of water and/or

49

gas samples from batch reactors violates the closed system requirement and calls for adequate

50

consideration. Unfortunately, ε-values reported in the literature often lack a clear description

51

whether corrections of measured concentration data were applied. Repetitive sampling from a

52

batch reactor not only leads to mass removal of the target compound(s) from the system but

53

also, if water samples are withdrawn, changes the phase ratio by decreasing the water phase

54

and increasing the headspace volume. Progressive change of the phase ratio, however, needs

55

to be taken into account for volatile organic contaminants such as chlorinated ethenes. As

56

either gas or water volume is sampled, the measured data represent the concentration in only

57

one of these phases and a mass balance on the system is required using Henry’s law and the

58

gas/water ratio to account for the entire amount of substrate or products

59

corrections were suggested to account for the cumulative amount of substrate removed by

60

repetitive sampling (CSR) 13,14,23.

. 18,19

where ε is derived from the slope of the linear correlation

4,20

, for

7,8,15

, however, at the expense of increased

21,22

. Additional

61

The present study systematically investigates how such correction methods affect ε-

62

values determined in batch experiments with repetitive sample removal. Using both

63

experimental case studies as well as a synthetic dataset calculated for typical experimental

64

conditions, we evaluate the performance of various correction methods, identify pitfalls and

4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

65

propose novel methods to eliminate systematic errors in data evaluation. A model-based

66

sensitivity analysis was performed to identify which experimental parameters require the most

67

stringent control and should be used to optimize the experimental design in order to obtain

68

correct isotope enrichment factors that are suitable for mechanistic interpretation and thus

69

indicative of the underlying isotope fractionation processes.

70 71

Methods to determine isotope enrichment factors

72

We describe current and newly proposed methods to account for mass removal by repetitive

73

sampling in batch reactors considering volatile organic compounds. Based on the substrate

74

fraction and stable isotope data the isotope enrichment factor (ε) can be calculated using a

75

simplified Rayleigh distillation equation 18,19 : 

() ≈ ∙    () (1) (0)

76

R(t) and R(0) are the stable isotope ratios of the substrate at a time t and the initial time and

77

fsubstrate(t) denotes the remaining substrate fraction (often approximated by the substrate

78

concentration according to c(t)/c(0)) at a time t. ε-values are derived by linear regression of

79

the data without forcing the regression through the origin as suggested by Scott, et al. 24.

80

The substrate fractions, fsubstrate(t), at different time points come from measured concentration

81

data of water samples subject to corrections accounting for volatilization into the increasing

82

headspace and repetitive removal of water samples from the batch reactors. Figure 1 illustrates

83

the effect of sampling and the challenges to adequately consider the effects of mass removal

84

and volatilization.

85

Below, we outline current (I-III) and newly proposed methods (IV and V) to calculate the

86

substrate fraction:

87

5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 23

Page 5 of 23

Environmental Science & Technology

88

Figure 1 Schematic illustration of the time course of the substrate fraction, f, during biodegradation in a repetitively sampled batch reactor considering an ideal case in which neither compound’s mass nor water volume are removed from the system and a realistic case which requires correction schemes. The Figure illustrates substrate removal due to sampling by lower water levels (“slices” withdrawn) and removal due to biodegradation by concentration changes (color shades). For example, method III (Henry + CSR) adequately corrects for mass removal by sampling (nrem), but ignores that the removed mass cannot undergo further biodegradation as it would occur in an undisturbed reactor. When all amounts are summed up, this scheme therefore overestimates the remaining substance fraction fsubstrate(t) (red curve).

89 90

(I) The substrate fraction in water phase (water) without further corrections is calculated as

91

follows:  () =

 () ∙  ()  () = (2)  (0) ∙  (0)  (0)

6

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 6 of 23

92

nw(t) and nw(0) correspond to the amount (moles) of the substrate in the water phase at times t

93

and t=0, respectively. Measured aqueous analyte concentrations, cw(t) are multiplied by the

94

water volume present at the respective time, Vw(t), to obtain nw(t) thus accounting for the

95

changes of the water volume.

96

(II)

97

substrate in the system by accounting for both the water phase and the gas phase of the batch

98

reactor. The substrate fraction, fHenry (t), is calculated as:

The correction for gas-water-partitioning (Henry) considers the total amount of

 () =

 () ∙  () +  () ∙  ()  () +  () = (3)  (0) ∙  (0) +  (0) ∙  (0)  (0) +  (0)

99

ng(t) and ng(0) correspond to the amount of substrate in the gas phase at time t and the initial

100

time. The substrate concentration in the gas phase, cg(t) is calculated from cw(t) by applying

101

Henry’s law. KH is the dimensionless Henry-constant (KH=cw/cg) of the analyte at the

102

appropriate temperature, calculated for 21°C according to Sander

103

Vg(t) is the volume of the gas phase in the batch reactor at time t.

25

and references therein.

104 105

(III)

106

(Henry+CSR) is an extension of the Henry-correction taking into account the amount of

107

substrate removed by repetitive sampling of the reactor. The substrate fraction, fHenry+CSR(t), is

108

calculated according to: 

The correction for gas-water partitioning and cumulative sample removal

!"# () =

()

!"#

=

 () ∙  () +  () ∙  () + ∑*+,% ( = & − 1) ∙ ( ( = & − 1))  (0) ∙  (0) +  (0) ∙  (0)

 () +  () + ∑*+, ( ( = & − 1) (4)  (0) +  (0)

109

nrem(t) corresponds to the amount of the substrate removed by sampling at a given time t and is

110

calculated by multiplying the concentration in the water phase (cw(t)) with the removed

111

volume (Vrem(t)) at time t. The summation term denotes the cumulative amount of substrate

112

removed from the system by sampling except for the last sampling. Even though this method

7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 23

Environmental Science & Technology

113

adequately calculates the mass of substrate that is removed by sampling, it considers this mass

114

as part of the substrate remaining fraction, as illustrated by the color shade in Figure 1. Even

115

so method III accounts for the removed mass it treats this mass as being part of the system that

116

is subject to further

117

fraction of substrate remaining fsubstrate(t).

(bio)-transformation. Consequently, the method overestimates the

118 119

(IV)

The stepwise correction (SW) method also accounts for gas-water partitioning and

120

sample removal. Contrary to method III (Henry+CSR) this method applies an iterative

121

correction scheme and avoids systematic over- or underestimation of substrate fractions which

122

is conceptually inherent to methods I to III.

123

First, for two consecutive sampling times individual substrate fractions, f(t-1)→t, are calculated.

124

By comparing the amounts of substrate present in the system at times t and at time (t-1) after

125

sample withdrawal, this fraction represents exclusively changes due to (bio)-degradation:

126 (.,)→ = (.,)→ =

 () +  ()  ( − 1) +  ( − 1) − ( ( − 1)

 () ∙  () +  () ∙  () (5)  ( − 1) ∙  ( − 1) +  ( − 1) ∙  ( − 1) −  ( − 1) ∙ ( ( − 1)

127 128

Using the dimensionless Henry’s constant (KH) equation 5 can be rearranged to: (.,)→

 () ∙  () 1 =  ( − 1) ∙  ( − 1)  ( − 1) ∙  ( − 1) + −  ( − 1) ∙ ( ( − 1) 1  () ∙  () + 

(.,)→

 ()  () ∙ 2 () + 3 1 = (6)  ( − 1) (  ( − 1) ∙ 2 ( − 1) + −  − 1)3 ( 1

129 130

cw(t) and cw(t-1) or Vrem(t) and Vrem(t-1) denote the measured concentrations or sample

131

volumes taken at time t and the preceding time point t-1.

132

Second, the overall substrate fraction at time t is calculated considering f(0)=1 (i.e., 100%

133

substrate fraction) and the results of equation 6 for all preceding time steps: "5 () = (0) ∙ 6→, ∙ ,→7 ∙ … ∙ (.,)→ (7)

134

8

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

135

As an example, for two sampling steps this method leads to the following expression: "5 (2) = (0) ∙ 6→, ∙ ,→7

 (1)  (2)  (1) ∙ 2 1 +  (1)3  (2) ∙ 2 1 +  (2)3   "5 (2) = 1 ∙ ∙ (8)  (0)  (1)  (0) ∙ 2 (0) + 1 − ( (0)3  (1) ∙ 2 (1) + 1 − ( (1)3  

136

As can be seen, the terms representing the substrate concentration of the intermediate time

137

point t=1 cancel out and equation 8 simplifies to:  (2)  (1) +  (1)3  (2) ∙ 2 +  (2)3 2 1 1 "5 (2) = 1 ∙ ∙ (9)  (0)  (1)  (0) ∙ 2 (0) + − ( (0)3 2 (1) + − ( (1)3 1 1

138

Note that this stepwise correction method requires the phase volume ratios for each time step

139

but concentration measurements only for the initial and the final time step.

140

Thereby the propagation of measurement errors (e.g., detector drift) from intermediate

141

sampling times are minimized

142 143

(V)

The mass balance correction (MB) method determines the substrate fractionation,

144

fMB(t), from a mass balance of reactant and products for each time point, i.e., by dividing the

145

amount of the substrate at time t by the sum of the amounts of substrate and all degradation

146

products at that time:

0.96 and CI